batmagadanleadoff

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Well can I borrow it then? What for?

="Methead"]It looks weird in the aerial shot, but it works. I used a blue line.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: ="batmagadanleadoff"]I used a transparent ruler device with many brightly colored straight lines as an overlay on the aerial view of the stadium. The foul lines run all the way to the farthest outfield corners. Who has one of these lying around on their desk? I do. I purchased it specifically in anticipation of this thread and that aerial photo. And I've gotten my money's worth!

HahnSolo wrote: ="batmagadanleadoff"]I used a transparent ruler device with many brightly colored straight lines as an overlay on the aerial view of the stadium. The foul lines run all the way to the farthest outfield corners. That may be true, but it almost looks like the foul line would run on the warning track (assuming that is the warning track). So what's wrong with that?

I have the 1964 Daily News reporting on Shea's inaugural game. Many players raved about Shea's excellent visibility and predicted that Shea would turn out to be a great hitter's park, which it never was as we all know, not even in 1964, not even by 1964's standards, and not even adjusting for the fact that it was the inept 1964 Mets that accounted for almost half of all Shea at-bats in 1964.

I used a transparent ruler device with many brightly colored straight lines as an overlay on the aerial view of the stadium. The foul lines run all the way to the farthest outfield corners.

Looks fine to me. Focus on where it appears that home plate would be. If you run the two (imaginary) foul lines from that point, the layout makes sense. There's hardly any foul territory to speak of, though, approaching the outfield corners.

metirish wrote: I meant a Duck Maybe you did. But Gary's still a fuck.

This is great news. I guess that the thing to do against the Brewers is for the Mets to figure out a way to taunt Macha into getting himself ejected, and then hope that Willie (<----------) gets to call the shots.

="G-Fafif"]Designed to be the greatest ever built for baseball... That youtube video is a segment of the Mets 1964 highlight film --It's a Met Met Met Met World.

AG/DC wrote: ="batmagadanleadoff"]If we've reached the point here where we understand (though disagree) with each other comments and are otherwise, at a dead end, we could play What's your favorite pizzeria, as a way to respectfully agree to disagree. I'll even start. Di Fara's in Brooklyn. I appreciate that, though Vic's told me I fail to even understand. Broadway Joes in Riverdale. It's now almost half an hour since my "What's your favorite pizzeria" post, and you still haven't started a "What's your favorite pizzeria" thread. Are you slipping? Is everything OK?

AG/DC wrote: I appreciate that, though Vic's told me I fail to even understand. Well, you didn't understand "What's your favorite pizzeria". So Vic's at least somewhat right.

Oh brother! <------- Now I'm Wee Willie Small Balls. I need nine more posts. And quick.

Centerfield wrote: I could perhaps buy the argument about honoring Jackie Robinson for his accomplishments if I felt that this was the reason he was being commemorated at CitiField. But I don't. I don't think Fred wanted Jackie Robinson Rotunda, or the faux-Ebbets field like look because of the things Robinson did. I think Fred wants to do it because he was a Dodger fan. I get that he was hurt when the Dodgers left, and in a way, he is fulfulling some sort of childhood dream by bringing them back, in his own way. But I think it's childish and dumb. I suspect the same. There's often a huge gap between action and motive. Owners are smart enough to provide what they'd believe to be the most politically correct or acceptable explanations for their public actions, instead of the pure truth. I don't have the evidence, but I'd bet anything that the creation of the Jackie Robinson rotunda was mostly motivated by Fred's desire to revisit his own personal childhood baseball memories.

AG/DC wrote: ="batmagadanleadoff"]AG/DC wrote: No. So what's your favorite pizzeria? I answered a yes/no queston. I don't know what this means. It means "What's your favorite pizzeria?" I used this phrase in an earlier post on this thread to suggest that there really isn't a right or wrong point of view. When I buy the Mets, I'll exercise my right to put up a statue of Tom Seaver. Or Tom Gorman. It'll be my team then. If we've reached the point here where we understand (though disagree) with each other comments and are otherwise, at a dead end, we could play What's your favorite pizzeria, as a way to respectfully agree to disagree. I'll even start. Di Fara's in Brooklyn.

AG/DC wrote: ="batmagadanleadoff"]AG/DC wrote: No. So what's your favorite pizzeria? I answered a yes/no queston. I don't know what this means. It means "What's your favorite pizzeria"?

AG/DC wrote: ="batmagadanleadoff"]It certainly wasn't the intent of O'Malley and Stoneham for the Mets to come into existence. Has anybody argued that it was? Not specifically,and not on this thread. Just doing my anticipatory best to address the supposed idea that the Dodgers begat the Mets.

AG/DC wrote: No. So what's your favorite pizzeria?

Vic Sage wrote: ]But it really is a logical stretch to link Robinson's legacy an adversarial relationship to the Mets no, it's not. Robinson was a Brooklyn Dodger, and became emblematic of that franchise. That franchise ran out on the borough of Brooklyn to make more money out west. My parents never forgave them. Many in my old neighborhood curse the Dodgers to this very day. And a statue to their icon in the Mets lobby is an affront to the very real pain people like my parents went through. Its not that they blame Jackie, or don't honor his memory and his accomplishments, both on and off the field. But they'd just as soon not have their noses rubbed in one of the most painful memories of their baseball lives every time they walk into their own ballpark. Why is that so hard to understand? I agree. I could never, ever, stand to read this feel good propaganda about the Mets being the progeny of the Giants and Dodgers. It certainly wasn't the intent of O'Malley and Stoneham for the Mets to come into existence. If anything, they were dead against a new New York franchise partaking of the huge market for competitive advantages. The Mets came into being under the most oppressive conditions in the history of MLB. Their early and spectacular incompetence was partly by design. This whole progeny business has gotten so distorted, you'd think that the Dodgers and Giants left solely so that the Mets could be created. Jackie Robinson's uniform said "Dodgers" on the chest. That's the enemy.

So what's next: The Jonas Salk Wing at CitiField? Jackie's legacy is also well represented. I don't know of any Babe Ruth highway in NYC.

AG/DC wrote: ="batmagadanleadoff"]I realize that this ship has already passed, but I'm extremely offended at the mere notion of honoring Jackie Robinson. The Mets themselves have a very rich history, spanning almost half a century. To my thinking, I cannot rationalize the celebration of an athlete that belongs to the tradition of a Met adversary, an enemy. I think you're trying too hard to be extremely offended here. Jackie Robinson's Dodgers were never a Met enemy or adversary. They never played one game against the Mets. It was the disappearing of Jackie Robinson's Dodgers in part that created the void that made the Mets possible. I'm not trying. I really am offended. I understand all the points you and MGIM were making in what I guess is support of the rotunda, have considered those points on my own as part of this debate that has manifested in my earlier post, and even agree with them. By the way, what would you say to a Babe Ruth wing at the new Citifield? The Mets never faced the Bambino, either. I don't know that there's a right or wrong here. Fred's exercising his right to create the Jackie Robinson Rotunda: to the spoiled owners, the spoils. Where one falls on this issue is really a matter of preference. This is no different than what's your favorite pizzeria? As of now, the rotunda appears to be the main attraction to visit at the new stadium. I was hoping that it would've been Met-themed. But maybe I was being unreasonable. Let the Dodgers build a Jackie Robinson rotunda. Or a Branch Rickey one. Or perhaps, they'd reciprocate by building a Tom Seaver wing. Tom's a Californian, so I heard. At least it's not the Mike Sciosia rotunda.

deleted dupe

Willets Point wrote: When I went to Jets games as a kid I often sat in front of the scoreboard and could see those "88's" up close. I fascinated me that every other digit could fit in an "8". When I was in the 3rd grade, we had to buy a graph paper notebook for some school project that I no longer remember. Most of the paper in the notebook went unused. At about that time, I was going through some obsessive phase with the pog configuration of the Shea Stadium scoreboard, and used my unused graph paper to draw every single digit and letter of the alphabet in Shea Stadium scoreboard style.

Iubitul wrote: ="Fman99"]Shouldn't it be in the stadium the DODGERS play in? This Wilpon-driven Brooklyn Dodger nostalgia makes me want to puke. How about paying homage to the team that, you know, we all root for? The Mets, anyone? The team whose hats and shirts I wear all the time? don't get me started... I realize that this ship has already passed, but I'm extremely offended at the mere notion of honoring Jackie Robinson. The Mets themselves have a very rich history, spanning almost half a century. To my thinking, I cannot rationalize the celebration of an athlete that belongs to the tradition of a Met adversary, an enemy. Jackie Robinson was, is, and will always be .... a Dodger. I think that the Wilpons, but mainly Fred here, have abused their special privileges as the trustees of the Mets franchise, and all of the attached history, records and memories that go with it, just to stroke Fred's warm childhood memories.

Vic Sage wrote: 2 good pics, but i went with RISKY BUSINESS. The great Tangerine Dream score, and its the GRADUATE of its generation. Established Cruise as a star. It's smarter than it pretends to be, which is consistent with its general theme of cynicism. WEREWOLF is a solid blend of horror and comedy, which is hard to pull off. But it's failure is inherent in the werwolf genre... the hero is doomed. So you've got to make his ultimate demise meaningful, in some way, in order to justify the tragedy. But it wasn't. He just gets shot after going on a rampage. Also, the failure to include the Zevon song is fatal. Vic, I kinda like your post. But in the end, I can't bring myself to vote for the tyrannical and creepy asshole.