batmagadanleadoff

="AG/DC"]="batmagadanleadoff"]Nymr83 wrote: Wait a minute. Are you hot? Am I hot? How the hell do I know? I don't even know if I'm me anymore. Rockin' Doc Apr 16 2008 05:32 PM Ben Grimm - "It wasn't just his weak bat that made Rey unlikeable. He was also a bit of a punk." I feel much the same way, but I initially tried to critique Rey only on the quality of his play. I got the impression that rdonez was a selfish player and a bit of an ass. Of course, I may be mistaken in my impression, but I stand by my assessment of his value as a player. I'm not crazy about Jeff Kent's personna either, from what I have seen and read, but I'm willing to acknowledge his talent and productiveness throughout his career. Rockin' Doc Apr 16 2008 05:41 PM I don't believe magadan is amphibious. I get the impression that he truly is a new guy.* *If however, he is who some seem to suspect, then I still don't see where is has written anything confrontational or combative in the time he has been here. cooby Apr 16 2008 06:44 PM ="batmagadanleadoff"]="AG/DC"]batmagadanleadoff wrote: ="Nymr83"] Wait a minute. Are you hot? Am I hot? How the hell do I know? I don't even know if I'm me anymore. Funny. I loved Rey Ordonez. I still want him back. Number 6 Apr 16 2008 09:53 PM Hal Lanier, career OPS+ of 49. To put it in context, though, I think giving playing time to Lanier and Rafael Belliard-types is less defensible now. It's just less acceptable to employ good glove/no hit middle infielders. The mold has been broken to some extent; GM's are better at evaluating net contributions from players and not falling back on narrow definitions of their positional roles. This isn't just a major-league thing; I don't think it's too controversial to assume that there are a lot more options at shortstop these days because they're not shunted off to third when they eclipse 6'2" or develop some power. I always thought that the Mets, given that this movement was in full force at the time, should have known better than to run Rey out there and expect the net impact of his skills to be positive, and that their willingness to do so may have rested on some old-timey assumptions about what a shortstop does. batmagadanleadoff Apr 17 2008 07:09 AM Number 6 wrote: I think giving playing time to Lanier and Rafael Belliard-types is less defensible now. Yeah. Lanier especially. He's almost 70. soupcan Apr 17 2008 07:15 AM I've always been partial to infielders who flash leather. Flynn, Ordonez, Bowa, Belanger - loved to watch them all. I mentioned once on this board that Reyes was the player I'd been waiting all of my Met fan life for. Not only does he have a great glove but he's a hitter. Who knew you could have both? On the Mets? When Doug Flynn won his Gold Glove there was no one prouder than me. Not even Doug's mom. Benjamin Grimm Apr 17 2008 07:22 AM Ozzie Smith was pretty amazing too. As for me, I think I get more of a buzz from outfield defense. I love it when Carlos Beltran runs down a fly ball that's been hit over his head, and I get a kick out of seeing old clips of Willie Mays and Sandy Amoros and Ron Swoboda and Tommie Agee. soupcan Apr 17 2008 07:32 AM Yeah Ozzie too. I spent some time in San Diego and remember when he was a Padre before the Cards traded Templeton for him. While he was always a crowd pleaser he was a bit unheralded in SD and actually worked a second job while he was a Pod to make ends meet. Wish I could remember what the job was but I'm drawing a blank. Benjamin Grimm Apr 17 2008 07:34 AM Yeah, Ozzie was probably at the tail end of the era when players had to have offseason jobs. I remember that "offseason jobs" was typical trivia fodder for the little cartoons on the backs of baseball cards. One of the most famous examples from my lifetime is, of course, Richie Hebner and his grave digging. batmagadanleadoff Apr 17 2008 09:54 AM Triple Dee wrote: Considering [Lanier and Ordonez] didn't play at the same time...., how exactly does that disprove he wasn't the worst regular [bML] ever saw I'm aware of Lanier's hitting ineptidute. And I did see him play, if only literally. I have no lingering memories of any Lanier at-bats, and in any event, would have been too young to appreciate his prowess as an out making machine when I did see Lanier play during that brief period of time when his stint as a SF Giant and my interest in baseball overlapped. (Edit: I just remembered that he was a Yankee, too. But still, no visual memories. Lanier's Yankees, like Lanier's Lanier, sucked. Thanks, in part, to Lanier himself, who contributed in his own small and out-making Lanierish ways to ensure that his Lanier Yankee teams would suck. There were no Mays's and McCoveys and Marichals and Cepedas and Perrys and all the 27 other Hall of Famers a team would need to cover up for Lanier being Lanier just to break even on account of having Hal Lanier in there. And so even Yankee fans ignored the Yankees back then. So why would a Met fan bother to take notice? I don't remember this Hal Lanier.) I did however collect his baseball cards. Not that I purposely sought them out, but that I wanted them, needed them really, as we used to say, in the completist sense. Also, I managed Lanier in my 1971 Strat-O-matic set for years and years. And years. Alan Gallagher was the better Giant third baseman in 1971. (1971 Strat-O-Matic SF Giant - Met-centric related notes: Dave Kingman's rookie year. He was a devastating destroyer of LHP in that season, albeit in a limited number of at bats. Kingman even hit for average against lefties (over .400!) If you could get him a full season's worth of AB's against lefties only, his final numbers would constitute an awesome almost Ruthian season combined with the best of Ted Williams (Well, more Ted than Babe really, but I temporarily shifted into hype mode just now, not that settling for Ted instead of the Babe is supposed to be some sort of booby prize)..... Fran Healy backed up Dick Dietz.... Willie Mays' last full season as a Giant and his last overall effective season.... Very respectable year for the future Met Ken Henderson.... George Foster's first full MLB season began in SF but ended in Cincy, where he accumulated the majority of his '71 AB's. As one would expect, Foster was not represented as a Giant in that SOM set, assuming anyone actually ever does any "expectering", anticipating whether some player will ultimately be included in this team's SOM set or that team's SOM set which probably wouldn't matter as much as I'm making all of this sound anyway because most SOM players eventually assemble their own teams from scratch anyhow. But for the record, George Foster was mostly a real Red in 1971 as well as an SOM Red. Therefore, this George Foster SOM Met centric note is tenuous and somewhat contrived because, like I said, Foster's '71 card was as a Red, and not as a Giant. After his Red Stint, George would go on to play for the New York Mets. Many fans thought Foster sucked as a Met. Most Met fans were willing to at least concede that even if Foster didn't suck, he was a disappointing Met who played well below expectations. Still, the acquisition of Foster, one of baseball's best hitters at that time, was a clear indication that the new Mets management was serious about building a contender. Foster's SOM cards during his years as a Met were, as one would expect, also as a Met. batmagadanleadoff Apr 17 2008 03:50 PM soupcan wrote: batmagadan seems very familiar to me.... Hey Soupcan guy: I was poking around the CPF today, especially what with me being new here and all and having a free day (stuck in the home but free) and so I ventured into the forums in which I've never participated or even browsed, and, well in short, I think I discovered who it was that you might think I am even though I'm only myself and really am a brand new poster here. Anyway, if I'm right about who that poster is that according to Grimm, no one should mention his name and so I won't either out of respect, well if it is that guy, I'm OK with it and not as pissed off as I was yesterday. Because that guy had a heck of a lot of funny posts, even though he did melt down here and there and not all of his posts were funny, but some sure were. I realize me saying this might bring even more suspicion that I really am that guy who I think was supposed to be me yesterday, even though like I said, I'm only me. Benjamin Grimm Apr 17 2008 04:11 PM His name can be mentioned. metsmarathon Apr 17 2008 04:22 PM its more fun not to, though. AG/DC Apr 17 2008 05:24 PM Let's not make legends of anybody. soupcan Apr 18 2008 07:23 AM batmagadanleadoff wrote: ="soupcan"]batmagadan seems very familiar to me.... ...well if it is that guy, I'm OK with it and not as pissed off as I was yesterday. Never meant to piss you off, I never had an issue with him. Just mentioned it because your posts seemed very similar to his - but different. metirish Apr 18 2008 08:46 AM Back to A-Rod , can I mention his name?..... Best Deal Sox never made batmagadanleadoff Apr 18 2008 09:31 AM soupcan wrote: Never meant to piss you off, I never had an issue with him. Just mentioned it because your posts seemed very similar to his - but different. I know. You did post that you were fine with it in any event, assuming I was him even though I'm not. It was really the accumulation of several posts on this thread plus that I was newer here two days ago than I am today, and that today, I at least have a theory as to who that other poster is. There's no problem and there never really was. metirish Apr 18 2008 09:33 AM Anyway that other fella liked the bunt play so you can't be him. batmagadanleadoff Apr 18 2008 09:36 AM metirish wrote: Anyway that other fella liked the bunt play so you can't be him. Did he? Well now I'm pissed off again that I would be compared to that sac bunt lovin' guy. Plus he's got those nuclear meltdowns that I never displayed.

Nymr83 wrote: and magadan, if you are not who i think you are, and are in fact a new member of the board, i apologize. Apology accepted, I suppose. Even though you offend me first, publicly, and then include a" just in case I'm wrong I'm sorry" at the tail end of your insult. What am I like, the only Met fan who ever hated Ordonez? Or that everyone who hates Ordonez has to be the same poster? I'd like to know who you think I am, even though it sounds like the person you think I am wasn't so hot.

="AG/DC":1oys23xk]I understand the money complaints, but please understand that (1) you'd be paying what you'd be paying whether Delgado was making twenty million or forty thousand, and (2) a different economy would still include weak grounders to second..[/quote:1oys23xk] Yeah, the game's the same. But fans with less money in their pockets are angrier. Even if they brought it on themselves in part, either by buying houses they couldn't afford, or by spending $15 bucks for a hot dog and a beer at a ballpark. Nymr83 Apr 16 2008 11:14 AM ="seawolf17":4955jues]I hate the clapping after the other team successfully executes the sac bunt too. Yes, you got an out, but there's a guy in scoring position now.[/quote:4955jues] thats a trade i'll usually take, unless the weak-hitting pitcher was the bunter. i don't really want to delve into the whole booing topic for the umpteenth time, except to say that i just haven't heard it. theres nothing like the booing down the stretch last year, theres no "fire isiah" chant, theres nobody printing up t-shirts that say "benitez blows" "cedeno cucks" "phire phillips" etc (as there were back around 2002). i'll be there tommorow night so maybe i'll hear some actual booing then, but i just dont think theres anything worth mentioning right no, at least nothing audible over the radio (which there has been in years past) Benjamin Grimm Apr 16 2008 11:18 AM I took my two kids to the game on Sunday, and the whole experience, including tickets, concessions, souvenirs, gas, parking, tolls, etc. (not all of which went to the Mets, of course) easily cost me over $200, perhaps close to $300. I'm fortunate enough to be able to blow that kind of money on an afternoon's entertainment every once in a while. If that $250 or so wasn't disposable income, I wouldn't have gone. I would have taken my kids to play miniature golf instead, and caught the game on TV. So while I agree that everything is too expensive, it's not compulsory to go and spend that money. Anyone who's at the game should be able to afford it. If they can't afford it, they're the ones who ought to be booed for spending money they can't spare. Nymr83 Apr 16 2008 11:22 AM i'm going tommorw night and i'll likely spend about $15. its a "value" game so you get in to the upper deck for $5. i'll be splitting parking 4 ways so thats another $4 and i'll spend $6 on a sandwhich before the game that the nice people at shea (unlike MSG) are quite happy to let me bring inside. i've got no complaints. Gwreck Apr 16 2008 11:39 AM ="Benjamin Grimm":2xee7b3s]So while I agree that everything is too expensive, it's not compulsory to go and spend that money. Anyone who's at the game should be able to afford it. If they can't afford it, they're the ones who ought to be booed for spending money they can't spare.[/quote:2xee7b3s] Well, duh, but that's not really the point I think. The problem is that for a fan who budgets say -- $1500/year -- to Mets-related entertainment continues to get less for his money each year, and the biggest gap was between what one got last year versus what one gets this year. And a big unknown coming up after this year. G-Fafif Apr 16 2008 11:40 AM My admission to last night's game was arranged by a thoughtful person who got his hands on some company's field box seats, so it was gratis all around, except for the company that bought them, of course. It wasn't until I got home and examined the ticket that I saw it was a $70 seat. Holy crap. Seventy dollars for one ticket to one baseball game on one night in April. A value date, no less. Field level, yes, but not behind home plate or anything like that. A corporate buy, yes, but unless I'm missing something, the company wasn't IBM. Somebody's charging $70 a seat for a baseball game in April and somebody's paying it. Nymr83 Apr 16 2008 11:45 AM ]and the biggest gap was between what one got last year versus what one gets this year i didnt think they'd raised prices much this year. Benjamin Grimm Apr 16 2008 11:46 AM ="Gwreck":eg52bibt]Add to the fact that we have this state-of-the-art stadium being built next door which -- I believe, from my own unscientific methods - many fans feel they are not going to be welcome in. Seating capacity is going down by 14,000 *seats* and they're not getting rid of the expensive ones. I've been to five games so far this year, sitting all in the Mezz or Upper Levels, and each time there were a lot of people expressing dismay that it will be the last year they will be able to go to games like they do now.[/quote:eg52bibt] This was a good point. I feel pretty much the same way. I, as I've said, only go to Shea about twice a year (I'm going to try to get there three times this year, though, which would be the most since 1992!) but I do see the end of Shea as the end of an era for me, personally. Part of the reason (a BIG part of the reason) I make the effort to get to Shea is because of nostalgia. I, in a way, grew up at Shea. I'm almost 45, and I've been going there since I was 8. Once the Mets are in a new home, I won't feel that nostalgic tug. If I want to go to a game, I might as well decide to see them in Philadelphia or Washington. Citi Field will never feel like "home" to me in the way that Shea has. (If I still lived in New York, though, I don't think I'd be seeing it this way. I just know that I'll be less motivated to see the Mets in a strange home ballpark that costs more and is harder to get tickets to.) AG/DC Apr 16 2008 11:50 AM I don't think people are booing over Citi. Grote15 Apr 16 2008 11:53 AM I am more than a casual fan and go to one game a year due to cost and distance. I think fans throughout baseball are booing baseball. It never bothered me that a certian player got a big contract or a certain team had a large payroll as I didnt see it as my money. In reality..in the wake of steroids indirectly padding performance and salaries and providing income for expensive stadiums with big ticket prices people are angry and pissed and vent the one time they get to go. Heck..I can't afford Citifield..it's corporate BS for a Big market built to win now team.. The Mets are expected to win and when they dont some people just go off..Maybe its's the booze. Until the Beatles play Citifield.. Shea Stadium is the home of the Mets..forever..in my heart anyway.. Gwreck Apr 16 2008 11:56 AM ="AG/DC":3oyl46a2]I don't think people are booing over Citi.[/quote:3oyl46a2] Directly? No, of course not. They're booing two and three run homers let up by our pitchers, or striking out with the bases loaded, or players who used to play for the team and were skewered in the press, or whatever. But is the Citi Field issue one of many facets of an underlying anger among a not-unsubstantial part of the fanbase? I proffer that it is. Nymr83 Apr 16 2008 11:56 AM oh, without a doubt the performance on the field is what generates the boos. i think someone people are suggesting that the price of entry (and other costs) may affect the level of poor performance required to elicit the boos. so because i shelled out $100 at the ballpark today (and by the way, have a gander at NFL ticket prices) i will boo reyes when he doesn't run out a grounder instead of waiting for him to not run out a grounder AND get caught stealing. AG/DC Apr 16 2008 11:58 AM If it's the economy, maybe the fans should save their money, stay home, and cling to their guns and religion and fear those unlike them. holychicken Apr 16 2008 11:59 AM I started a topic that lasted more than a page. That pretty much confirms it. Mets fans have collectively lost their mind. But seriously, a bunch of good points brought up. I just feel that there is a lot more vileness this year for this point in the season. I attributed it to the collapse next year. . . but the whole salary thing and new stadium is probably part of it as well. AG/DC Apr 16 2008 12:09 PM ="Gwreck":24gjke7t]="AG/DC":24gjke7t]I don't think people are booing over Citi.[/quote:24gjke7t] Directly? No, of course not. They're booing two and three run homers let up by our pitchers, or striking out with the bases loaded, or players who used to play for the team and were skewered in the press, or whatever. But is the Citi Field issue one of many facets of an underlying anger among a not-unsubstantial part of the fanbase? I proffer that it is.[/quote:24gjke7t] I don't think it's that different in character from booing that's been around most of the decade. Booing Beltran during the opening day introductions in 2006 --- did that have much to do with CitiCorps? metsmarathon Apr 16 2008 12:14 PM met fans are very prescient. Nymr83 Apr 16 2008 12:14 PM ="AG/DC":1b8pewki]If it's the economy, maybe the fans should save their money, stay home, and cling to their guns and religion and fear those unlike them.[/quote:1b8pewki] i need a gun to cling to. cuddle with even. seawolf17 Apr 16 2008 12:23 PM ="Nymr83"]="AG/DC"]If it's the economy, maybe the fans should save their money, stay home, and cling to their guns and religion and fear those unlike them. i need a gun to cling to. cuddle with even. I nominate either one of these: Nymr83 Apr 16 2008 12:35 PM i used to love duck hunt. smg58 Apr 16 2008 02:39 PM The Mets aren't the only local team with issues like this. The Giants were a terrific football team -- and tops in the league on the day when it mattered most -- but only when they played away from Giants Stadium. The fans were so eager to throw Manning/Coughlin/etc under the bus that it turned into a self-fulfilling prophecy at 5 of the 8 home games. And if the Giants didn't find a way to run the table in the playoffs, they'd be cut no slack this year. Now they might get a few games reprieve, lucky them. But the sportscasters yesterday mentioned that Beltran and Delgado have had home/road splits since coming here that are too large for the park to account for. So there's reason to think that this does affect some of the players. metsmarathon Apr 16 2008 03:16 PM i've always believed that mood affects outcome. specifically that a positive mood is more likely to yield a positive outcome than is a negative mood (within the realm of that which can be influenced by you). flipping a coin happily is unlikely to yield a greater occurrence of the chosen side than flipping that same coin angrily; the same, i believe, cannot be said of shooting free throws. in a positive mood, challenges present opportunities; in a negative mood, obstacles. as a fan, you have the ability to influence the game. it is a small influence, indeed, but it is still a potential influence. either by booing or by cheering, fans can alter the atmosphere of a game, turning it into either a positive or a negative. that characteristic of the atmosphere can influence the way the players play the game, as is alluded to often enough. players pressing, or playing loosely. trying too hard, or going with the flow. i believe that this atmosphere can affect the outcome of plays in subtle ways. take, for instance, a ground ball to the shortstop. if the crowd has been unrelenting and unforgiving of a lack of performance by the home team, the batter may think 'fuck, i'm going to get thrown out, and they're gonna grill me' and, presupposing the outcome to be negative, perhaps the player doesn't hustle, or slows up as the play is made. if the crowd has been encouraging and supportive, the player may think 'maybe he'll boot it. maybe i can get him to rush and throw it away' and the player runs ever so slightly harder to first, perhaps fulfilling that prophecy. the player reactions, despite their being 'professionals' and paid to play a game' are all natural human responses to the environment. positive environments bringing about a greater likelihood of positive responses to the environment, and a greater likelihood of turning challenges into opportunities which are increasingly taken advantage of, as opposed to negative environments brining about greater likelihood of negative responses to the environment, and a greater likelihood of turning challenges into obstacles which are increasingly stumbled over. given all that philosophical mumbo jumbo, booing the home team is dumb, as it is unlikely to make the team perform better, and is more likely to make the team perform worse. i want my team seeing opportunities, not obstacles. won't you please help them? feel free to boo from home, though. i'm not nuts enough to think that the negative energy you create in your tv room, basement, or the local bar, is going to have any impact on the game - you can't influence it if you're not there. Willets Point Apr 16 2008 03:40 PM This is something that's troubled me a lot as a Mets fan. As a child, I was drawn to the Mets because even though they were often awful the fans remained optimistic. They looked for and cherished the Mets Magic and miracles even if they came rarely. Fans would start a "Lets Go Mets" chant - without prompting - even with the team several runs behind in the ninth inning. When the Mets won it all in 1986 it made all that support and optimism justified. I was disgusted by the behavior of Mets fans at Shea and online last September. The Mets needed to win just 1-2 more games to make the playoffs, but instead of rallying behind the team to get those wins, the "fans" booed and vilified them. I was particularly disgusted by the scapegoating of individual players like Jose Reyes. At the time I made the analogy to Gil Hodges who during a desperate slump inspired Dodgers fans to gather together in prayer to end his batting troubles. I think not so many years ago, the type of Mets fans I grew up with would have rallied behind Reyes in a similar way. In Sept. 2007, they not only criticized his poor play but vilified his character as well. That's just wrong, and I seriously questioned whether I wanted to be associated with being a Mets fan after that. Eventually I decided I can only act for myself and be the most positive type of Mets fan I can be. The thing I kept hearing last September from Mets "fans" is that the team gave up. That may be true, but I believe the fans gave up on the team first. The fact that the Mets played before largely hostile crowds at home in the final weeks of the season is in my opinion a major contributing cause of the "collapse." Number 6 Apr 16 2008 09:17 PM ="Willets Point":2xueb28v]Fans would start a "Lets Go Mets" chant - without prompting - even with the team several runs behind in the ninth inning.[/quote:2xueb28v] Not to threadjack too badly, but boy, do I ever wish the Mets would run a promotion called "Quiet Day," when they wouldn't pump loud music and force-feed cheers and crowd noise constantly throughout the game. Alternately, it could be called "Learn To Cheer All By Yourself, You Ninny Day." Willets Point Apr 16 2008 09:53 PM ="Number 6":en7ovw52]="Willets Point":en7ovw52]Fans would start a "Lets Go Mets" chant - without prompting - even with the team several runs behind in the ninth inning.[/quote:en7ovw52] Not to threadjack too badly, but boy, do I ever wish the Mets would run a promotion called "Quiet Day," when they wouldn't pump loud music and force-feed cheers and crowd noise constantly throughout the game. Alternately, it could be called "Learn To Cheer All By Yourself, You Ninny Day."[/quote:en7ovw52] I'm down with that. It could coincide with a resurrected banner day. Btw, is it the chicken or the egg? Can fans not cheer without prompting from the PA system or has all the noise made it so that fans can't start their own cheers even if they want to? seawolf17 Apr 17 2008 04:43 AM Another missed opportunity for the Mets this year... one more Banner Day before the stadium closes. It's like the marketing folks are living underground. Fman99 Apr 17 2008 09:06 AM ="Willets Point":31lljaza]="Number 6":31lljaza]="Willets Point":31lljaza]Fans would start a "Lets Go Mets" chant - without prompting - even with the team several runs behind in the ninth inning.[/quote:31lljaza] Not to threadjack too badly, but boy, do I ever wish the Mets would run a promotion called "Quiet Day," when they wouldn't pump loud music and force-feed cheers and crowd noise constantly throughout the game. Alternately, it could be called "Learn To Cheer All By Yourself, You Ninny Day."[/quote:31lljaza] I'm down with that. It could coincide with a resurrected banner day. Btw, is it the chicken or the egg? Can fans not cheer without prompting from the PA system or has all the noise made it so that fans can't start their own cheers even if they want to?[/quote:31lljaza] Well there has been professional baseball games in the 'modern' era for 110 years, and the first 70 or so the fans somehow knew when to cheer and when to shut up. It's the Saturday afternoon Fox GOTW mentality. Casual fans are too dumb to know when they should cheer. All you need are lights and a manual scoreboard to show the count on the batter. Maybe a pipe organ for affect. Turn off all the rest of it as it's just noise. Benjamin Grimm Apr 17 2008 09:09 AM You see it as noise, and I do too. But for many fans, it's what makes a day at the ballpark entertaining. And that's why it's not going to go away. None of the teams want to replicate the 1910 baseball experience at the cost of thousands of paying fans. metsmarathon Apr 17 2008 09:29 AM i like the lights and the scoreboard animations and all that. 'whoop, there it is' when a met hits a home run, i think we can surely do without. maybe if they were able to keep current with the noisemakers instead of falling into tired cliches, it wouldn't be so bad... well, as far as celebretory songs anyways. the rest of the 'tell the fans when to cheer and how or else they won't' could go away, or be supplanted with more creative ideas. i dislike when they take something the fans do naturally, and turn it into a cheering-cue, like the jose-josejosejose-jose-jose thing. AG/DC Apr 27 2008 07:56 PM Sherman points to the obvious: http://www.nypost.com/seven/04272008/sports/mets/negativity_always_at_bat_108409.htm?page=0 Nymr83 Apr 27 2008 08:15 PM ]Btw, is it the chicken or the egg? Can fans not cheer without prompting from the PA system or has all the noise made it so that fans can't start their own cheers even if they want to? the whle thing for jose reyes started out as the fans, then the idiots decided that the fans needed prompting to keep doing it. oh and i HATE that whole "everybody clap your hands" thing. G-Fafif Apr 28 2008 06:08 AM Sherman writes: ]Yankee fans do the role call early in the game. Does that mean they call out each player's name and describe what his duties to the team are? Or that they are the most encouraging of souls? (Oh wait, the MFYs have nothing to do with any of this, but every columnist who used to cover them has to invoke them even when not writing about them. Silly me.) Post guy comes out against booing on Sunday, rain on Monday. Yippee. This will be anecdotal by necessity because, unlike Joel Sherman, I can't read tens of thousands of minds, but from where I sat on Sunday, boos did not pour down on Delgado's shiny pate after not taking a curtain call. He was applauded for his accomplishments and, when he didn't respond, it felt collectively shrugged off. Certainly in my section and, to my ears, in general. Carlos' reaction didn't at all feel like The Story while I was there on Sunday. Somehow I'm not surprised that it is in the papers and on the FAN this Monday. The dissatisfaction with a slumping slugger morphing into appreciation after he actually slugs reminds me of what George Foster experienced intermittently after being buried in his first year. He'd be booed, he'd break out, he'd be given a hero's greeting and then he'd be back to boos with the next couple of ohfers. Foster would tip his cap anyway. Didn't seem to win him any enduring points in the long run. AG/DC Apr 28 2008 01:53 PM Noble, Marty: Booing at Shea Stadium has become endemic and borderline shameful. Most folks who never have played the game at any level higher than Babe Ruth -- and I certainly am one of them -- have little sense of how difficult the game is to play. They appreciate success and demand it at all times. It's as if they believe a 25-0 season or .480 batting average would happen if the players put more effort into their performances. Because fans have the right to boo, they seemingly think it is their responsibility to boo, and they boo because they can. My sense of it is that a couple of thousand malcontents, still bruised by the events of last September, express themselves at nearly every opportunity -- even a leadoff groundout to short in the first inning. Then the followers follow as if booing is contagious. I suspect most of the boo birds would kill for an autograph and gush if they were to meet the same player they booed an hour earlier. The increased dissatisfaction among fans, I think, is prompted to some degree by the millions players earn and the intolerance for anything but success expressed by sports talk radio. Those shows harp on one or two isolated plays. One topic -- one misplay -- will be reviewed for 30 minutes. Even the hosts repeat themselves. If newspaper or Web sites were to react in the same way, you would read the same three paragraphs 20 times. The concentrated criticism and ridicule creates a distorted view of a play or the player(s) involved, and that misperception carries over to the people who attend games. More than ever, fans want to be part of the game, part of the in-stadium experience. I don't understand. When I was a kid, I went to ballpark to watch. I cheered the good plays and recognized the bad. I'm sure I booed a call I didn't like. I'm sure my father or uncle didn't allow me to boo anything else. New York likes to think of itself as a tough town. And I believe every high-profile, new player is tested by the fans; witness the boos for Johan Santana. Kevin McReynolds, a fine player, was booed far more often than he deserved. After he left he Mets, he said New York fans want a player to succeed, but if success doesn't happen, the fans' second preference is for abject failure. I don't think he was off the mark in that assessment. *62 Apr 28 2008 02:04 PM Booing at Shea didn't seem to be a widespread problem until after the fall to earth of the highly competitive teams of the mid-to-late eighties and 1990 .... after that, the crowds got progressively more ignorant each season. The collective intelligence these days doesn't even move the needle. AG/DC Apr 28 2008 02:23 PM That may be a late-comer to you and me, but its 18 years of Metfan ignorance. Metfan ignorance is old enough, in many countries, to appear in a pornographic video, or express legal consent to sexual relations with another. Metfan ignorance has the right to bear arms, own property, marry without parental consent, get an abortion, donate its body to science, and serve on a jury. With these new privileges come responsibility: Metfan ignorance would be tried as an adult in court. In the United Kingdom, Metfan ignorance can purchase tobacco, alcohol, pornography, go to war, vote, and model for pornography; (but reached the the age of consent at 16). Metfan ignorance can be admitted to, rent, or buy an MPAA-rated NC-17 movie. Metfan ignorance can play, rent, or buy an ESRB rated AO game. It's intolerable. Frayed Knot Apr 28 2008 02:32 PM ="*62"]Booing at Shea didn't seem to be a widespread problem until after the fall to earth of the highly competitive teams of the mid-to-late eighties and 1990 .... after that, the crowds got progressively more ignorant each season. Take the collapse of the post-'80s teams with "only" one WC to show, tack on the unlikeability of the squads that followed, add a pinch of the general reaction to the '94 strike, and then top all that with a decade-plus run of the cross-town team and those are ingrediants for the anger to be building for years. Met fans have sounded angry to me for going on 20 years now. They're merely angrier these days. ]The collective intelligence these days doesn't even move the needle. It's why I hate Met fans. G-Fafif Apr 28 2008 04:00 PM From a commenter named "the dude formerly known as bill l." on Brooklyn Met Fan, a couple of weeks ago: ]4/10/1976 Red Smith, New York Times �Temperatures were creeping into the upper 40�s, but a snaggle-toothed wind whistling in from left field lent a Joe Namath touch to an entertainment starring that other New York folk hero, Tom Seaver. This is a folk hero, incidentally, whom the folks welcomed back with boos because he earns more money than they do�� July 12, 1983 When Darryl Strawberry went to bat for the Mets in the eighth inning of Sunday�s game, many in the crowd of 17,666 at Shea Stadium booed. Strawberry has heard a lot of boos throughout his difficult rookie season. July 1, 1987 When Doug Sisk of the Mets complained earlier this season that he, Darryl Strawberry and Howard Johnson had been unfair targets of booing at Shea Stadium, they sounded like the latest victims in a phenomenon that started 26 seasons ago, at the beginning of the Mets� existence. The first player to draw the wrath of the crowd was Jim Marshall, one of the 25 original Mets. ��It was our opening home game on April 13, 1962, after we had lost our first two games in St. Louis,'� the outfielder-first baseman said. ��We were playing Pittsburgh at the Polo Grounds and Gil Hodges, a big favorite in New York from his days with the Brooklyn Dodgers, was supposed to start at first base. ��But Gil came up with a sore knee, so when the starting lineups were announced with me at first base, the capacity crowd let out with a long wave of boos. ��What do you think of that? Before swinging a bat or touching a ball, I was the first Met to be booed in New York.'� July 28, 1989 Carter Comes Back, but to Cold Shoulder Associated Press New York�Gary Carter would like the next two months to prove he can still play baseball. Fans at Shea Stadium needed much less time to decide. Carter came off the disabled list Tuesday and hit into a double play as a pinch hitter in the eighth inning. On Wednesday night, he started and was 0-3 as the New York Mets lost to Pittsburgh, 3-2. It was a humid night and the 40,000 on hand were not in a particularly charitable mood. With each out, Carter was booed just a little harder�� Mercury News Wire Services December 1, 1989, Page 8D, San Jose Mercury News (CA) Juan Samuel asked the New York Mets to trade him next week at the winter meetings in Nashville, Tenn., the New York Daily News reported today. Samuel was acquired June 18 for Roger McDowell and Lenny Dykstra, but he hit only .228 and had to endure booing at Shea Stadium, in part because he had replaced the popular Dykstra and Mookie Wilson. So Samuel told club officials he would not mind a trade. 8/24/98 NY Times �At a time when the Mets need all the help they can get as they battle for a spot as a wild-card entry in the playoffs, how does one account for the fans at Shea stadium booing Mike Piazza, their leading slugger, with an enthusiasm perhaps second only to their shouts to aatract the attention of the beer vendor? Newsday 4/4/2006 Beltran boos carry over. Byline: Wallace Matthews Apr. 4�Even in the best of times, it doesn�t take long for New Yorkers to isolate and attack a target. Yesterday, it took about a half-hour for Mets fans to lock on to Carlos Beltran. Who knows when they will let go? The boos rained down on the Mets� centerfielder early and often, pausing only when the final out of the game was made about two hours later and the home team had secured a 3-2 victory over the Washington Nationals. That was the direct result of Beltran�s peg from the left-centerfield gap to the glove of Anderson Hernandez to retire Jose Vidro trying to stretch a two-out single, but the cheers seemed more in response�� Daily News, April 12, 2008 �After being greeted with the longest and loudest ovation during Opening Day introductions Tuesday, Johan Santana had his official �Welcome to New York� moment Saturday. Flushing�s new ace and savior heard some boos at Shea as he departed the mound in the seventh inning of a 5-3 loss to .Milwaukee in his long-anticipated home debut.� SteveJRogers Apr 28 2008 04:31 PM ="Willets Point":2obz60rj]="Number 6":2obz60rj]="Willets Point":2obz60rj]Fans would start a "Lets Go Mets" chant - without prompting - even with the team several runs behind in the ninth inning.[/quote:2obz60rj] Not to threadjack too badly, but boy, do I ever wish the Mets would run a promotion called "Quiet Day," when they wouldn't pump loud music and force-feed cheers and crowd noise constantly throughout the game. Alternately, it could be called "Learn To Cheer All By Yourself, You Ninny Day."[/quote:2obz60rj] I'm down with that. It could coincide with a resurrected banner day. Btw, is it the chicken or the egg? Can fans not cheer without prompting from the PA system or has all the noise made it so that fans can't start their own cheers even if they want to?[/quote:2obz60rj] In another Met Online Fan Forum though that kind of attitude you are describing gets mocked with the Mets aggressive style of "in-your-face" PA antics. The "Everybody Clap Your Hands" the "Pepsi Party Patrol" t-shirt launch. The idea is that the Mets PA system is trying to create an image of the "real fan" and the fans on that board are replused by the idea that they (the Mets marketing department) know how real fans should act. AG/DC May 28 2008 07:27 AM So, Monday night, changing "Fire Willie!" in the ninth. Is that within the pale? seawolf17 May 28 2008 08:30 AM They only did it because Chris Rock told them to. metirish May 28 2008 12:09 PM Wayne Noble of Syracuse , in Colorado I think. Edgy DC Jan 02 2009 12:47 PM A I hearily endorse this thread as a Craney Nominee. Rockin' Doc Jan 02 2009 04:40 PM I am quickly coming to the conclusion that one of the prerequisites of a craney nomination is that I had little or no part in the thread. I think this is a great idea to nominate threads that contain great discussions and moments. We should get one or two more threads nominated and then start a thread for discussion and a poll for voting for the best thread of 2008.

="Benjamin Grimm":11mdxf6w]="soupcan":11mdxf6w]I caught that too. 10 to 15 games is pretty hard core, especially given how expensive it's become. A casual fan goes once or twice a year. Hell, I go once or twice a year, and I'm more than a casual fan. Keith is so out of touch with the common people that he might as well run for President.[/quote:11mdxf6w][/quote:11mdxf6w] I personally know a few super hard core fans who haven't been to Shea in a few years. It could be a money thing. Not just baseball salaries, but that the whole economy is struggling. It appears to me that a married couple earning the average salary needs to spend almost an entire week's worth of wages to take their two kids to a ballgame, assuming that they also intend to make the usual expenditures for food and souvenirs. AG/DC Apr 16 2008 10:20 AM I understand the money complaints, but please understand that (1) you'd be paying what you'd be paying whether Delgado was making twenty million or forty thousand, and (2) a different economy would still include weak grounders to second. If you want to boo somebody for the price of baseball, boo the Lords of the Realm for setting up a system that protects teams from market competition and the gummint that allows it. Support indy teams and encourage them to flood into major markets and increase the compatitive level of their teams until it shakes baseball to it's core. Frayed Knot Apr 16 2008 10:39 AM Met fans, in my mind, have long been an angry bunch, a condition that's certainly been aggravated by the success of the cross-town rivals over the last decade or more (and to a lesser extent by the cross-division rivals in Georgia) added to by last year's late season collapse. At this point they (the loud minority perhaps, but a not inconsequential one) are simply looking for things to be pissed off at; examples: - Cheering Santana wildly upon his introduction and entrence ... only to boo when he has the gall not to toss a shutout in his first start - the over-the-top reaction to the short-term tribulations of the likes of Heilman (as well as virtually every closer who's ever been here) caused by a total lack of perspective as to the folly of assuming a reliever's perfection - demanding instant firings of managers & coaches for arguable and minor points of strategy. and yadda, yadda, yadda metirish Apr 16 2008 10:39 AM Is this a league wide problem I wonder, is David Ortiz getting booed in Boston , he has hit nothing this season, so far. Philly fans boo everything, booed Wagner when he was there after he stopped hitting 100mph on the gun , surely the Tigers players are getting booed mightily . It can't be just the sophisticated NY baseball fans doing the booing. batmagadanleadoff Apr 16 2008 10:47 AM ="AG/DC":1oys23xk]I understand the money complaints, but please understand that (1) you'd be paying what you'd be paying whether Delgado was making twenty million or forty thousand, and (2) a different economy would still include weak grounders to second..[/quote:1oys23xk] Yeah, the game's the same. But fans with less money in their pockets are angrier. Even if they brought it on themselves in part, either by buying houses they couldn't afford, or by spending $15 bucks for a hot dog and a beer at a ballpark. Nymr83 Apr 16 2008 11:14 AM ="seawolf17":4955jues]I hate the clapping after the other team successfully executes the sac bunt too. Yes, you got an out, but there's a guy in scoring position now.[/quote:4955jues] thats a trade i'll usually take, unless the weak-hitting pitcher was the bunter. i don't really want to delve into the whole booing topic for the umpteenth time, except to say that i just haven't heard it. theres nothing like the booing down the stretch last year, theres no "fire isiah" chant, theres nobody printing up t-shirts that say "benitez blows" "cedeno cucks" "phire phillips" etc (as there were back around 2002). i'll be there tommorow night so maybe i'll hear some actual booing then, but i just dont think theres anything worth mentioning right no, at least nothing audible over the radio (which there has been in years past) Benjamin Grimm Apr 16 2008 11:18 AM I took my two kids to the game on Sunday, and the whole experience, including tickets, concessions, souvenirs, gas, parking, tolls, etc. (not all of which went to the Mets, of course) easily cost me over $200, perhaps close to $300. I'm fortunate enough to be able to blow that kind of money on an afternoon's entertainment every once in a while. If that $250 or so wasn't disposable income, I wouldn't have gone. I would have taken my kids to play miniature golf instead, and caught the game on TV. So while I agree that everything is too expensive, it's not compulsory to go and spend that money. Anyone who's at the game should be able to afford it. If they can't afford it, they're the ones who ought to be booed for spending money they can't spare. Nymr83 Apr 16 2008 11:22 AM i'm going tommorw night and i'll likely spend about $15. its a "value" game so you get in to the upper deck for $5. i'll be splitting parking 4 ways so thats another $4 and i'll spend $6 on a sandwhich before the game that the nice people at shea (unlike MSG) are quite happy to let me bring inside. i've got no complaints. Gwreck Apr 16 2008 11:39 AM ="Benjamin Grimm":2xee7b3s]So while I agree that everything is too expensive, it's not compulsory to go and spend that money. Anyone who's at the game should be able to afford it. If they can't afford it, they're the ones who ought to be booed for spending money they can't spare.[/quote:2xee7b3s] Well, duh, but that's not really the point I think. The problem is that for a fan who budgets say -- $1500/year -- to Mets-related entertainment continues to get less for his money each year, and the biggest gap was between what one got last year versus what one gets this year. And a big unknown coming up after this year. G-Fafif Apr 16 2008 11:40 AM My admission to last night's game was arranged by a thoughtful person who got his hands on some company's field box seats, so it was gratis all around, except for the company that bought them, of course. It wasn't until I got home and examined the ticket that I saw it was a $70 seat. Holy crap. Seventy dollars for one ticket to one baseball game on one night in April. A value date, no less. Field level, yes, but not behind home plate or anything like that. A corporate buy, yes, but unless I'm missing something, the company wasn't IBM. Somebody's charging $70 a seat for a baseball game in April and somebody's paying it. Nymr83 Apr 16 2008 11:45 AM ]and the biggest gap was between what one got last year versus what one gets this year i didnt think they'd raised prices much this year. Benjamin Grimm Apr 16 2008 11:46 AM ="Gwreck":eg52bibt]Add to the fact that we have this state-of-the-art stadium being built next door which -- I believe, from my own unscientific methods - many fans feel they are not going to be welcome in. Seating capacity is going down by 14,000 *seats* and they're not getting rid of the expensive ones. I've been to five games so far this year, sitting all in the Mezz or Upper Levels, and each time there were a lot of people expressing dismay that it will be the last year they will be able to go to games like they do now.[/quote:eg52bibt] This was a good point. I feel pretty much the same way. I, as I've said, only go to Shea about twice a year (I'm going to try to get there three times this year, though, which would be the most since 1992!) but I do see the end of Shea as the end of an era for me, personally. Part of the reason (a BIG part of the reason) I make the effort to get to Shea is because of nostalgia. I, in a way, grew up at Shea. I'm almost 45, and I've been going there since I was 8. Once the Mets are in a new home, I won't feel that nostalgic tug. If I want to go to a game, I might as well decide to see them in Philadelphia or Washington. Citi Field will never feel like "home" to me in the way that Shea has. (If I still lived in New York, though, I don't think I'd be seeing it this way. I just know that I'll be less motivated to see the Mets in a strange home ballpark that costs more and is harder to get tickets to.) AG/DC Apr 16 2008 11:50 AM I don't think people are booing over Citi. Grote15 Apr 16 2008 11:53 AM I am more than a casual fan and go to one game a year due to cost and distance. I think fans throughout baseball are booing baseball. It never bothered me that a certian player got a big contract or a certain team had a large payroll as I didnt see it as my money. In reality..in the wake of steroids indirectly padding performance and salaries and providing income for expensive stadiums with big ticket prices people are angry and pissed and vent the one time they get to go. Heck..I can't afford Citifield..it's corporate BS for a Big market built to win now team.. The Mets are expected to win and when they dont some people just go off..Maybe its's the booze. Until the Beatles play Citifield.. Shea Stadium is the home of the Mets..forever..in my heart anyway.. Gwreck Apr 16 2008 11:56 AM ="AG/DC":3oyl46a2]I don't think people are booing over Citi.[/quote:3oyl46a2] Directly? No, of course not. They're booing two and three run homers let up by our pitchers, or striking out with the bases loaded, or players who used to play for the team and were skewered in the press, or whatever. But is the Citi Field issue one of many facets of an underlying anger among a not-unsubstantial part of the fanbase? I proffer that it is. Nymr83 Apr 16 2008 11:56 AM oh, without a doubt the performance on the field is what generates the boos. i think someone people are suggesting that the price of entry (and other costs) may affect the level of poor performance required to elicit the boos. so because i shelled out $100 at the ballpark today (and by the way, have a gander at NFL ticket prices) i will boo reyes when he doesn't run out a grounder instead of waiting for him to not run out a grounder AND get caught stealing. AG/DC Apr 16 2008 11:58 AM If it's the economy, maybe the fans should save their money, stay home, and cling to their guns and religion and fear those unlike them. holychicken Apr 16 2008 11:59 AM I started a topic that lasted more than a page. That pretty much confirms it. Mets fans have collectively lost their mind. But seriously, a bunch of good points brought up. I just feel that there is a lot more vileness this year for this point in the season. I attributed it to the collapse next year. . . but the whole salary thing and new stadium is probably part of it as well. AG/DC Apr 16 2008 12:09 PM ="Gwreck":24gjke7t]="AG/DC":24gjke7t]I don't think people are booing over Citi.[/quote:24gjke7t] Directly? No, of course not. They're booing two and three run homers let up by our pitchers, or striking out with the bases loaded, or players who used to play for the team and were skewered in the press, or whatever. But is the Citi Field issue one of many facets of an underlying anger among a not-unsubstantial part of the fanbase? I proffer that it is.[/quote:24gjke7t] I don't think it's that different in character from booing that's been around most of the decade. Booing Beltran during the opening day introductions in 2006 --- did that have much to do with CitiCorps? metsmarathon Apr 16 2008 12:14 PM met fans are very prescient. Nymr83 Apr 16 2008 12:14 PM ="AG/DC":1b8pewki]If it's the economy, maybe the fans should save their money, stay home, and cling to their guns and religion and fear those unlike them.[/quote:1b8pewki] i need a gun to cling to. cuddle with even. seawolf17 Apr 16 2008 12:23 PM ="Nymr83"]="AG/DC"]If it's the economy, maybe the fans should save their money, stay home, and cling to their guns and religion and fear those unlike them. i need a gun to cling to. cuddle with even. I nominate either one of these: Nymr83 Apr 16 2008 12:35 PM i used to love duck hunt. smg58 Apr 16 2008 02:39 PM The Mets aren't the only local team with issues like this. The Giants were a terrific football team -- and tops in the league on the day when it mattered most -- but only when they played away from Giants Stadium. The fans were so eager to throw Manning/Coughlin/etc under the bus that it turned into a self-fulfilling prophecy at 5 of the 8 home games. And if the Giants didn't find a way to run the table in the playoffs, they'd be cut no slack this year. Now they might get a few games reprieve, lucky them. But the sportscasters yesterday mentioned that Beltran and Delgado have had home/road splits since coming here that are too large for the park to account for. So there's reason to think that this does affect some of the players. metsmarathon Apr 16 2008 03:16 PM i've always believed that mood affects outcome. specifically that a positive mood is more likely to yield a positive outcome than is a negative mood (within the realm of that which can be influenced by you). flipping a coin happily is unlikely to yield a greater occurrence of the chosen side than flipping that same coin angrily; the same, i believe, cannot be said of shooting free throws. in a positive mood, challenges present opportunities; in a negative mood, obstacles. as a fan, you have the ability to influence the game. it is a small influence, indeed, but it is still a potential influence. either by booing or by cheering, fans can alter the atmosphere of a game, turning it into either a positive or a negative. that characteristic of the atmosphere can influence the way the players play the game, as is alluded to often enough. players pressing, or playing loosely. trying too hard, or going with the flow. i believe that this atmosphere can affect the outcome of plays in subtle ways. take, for instance, a ground ball to the shortstop. if the crowd has been unrelenting and unforgiving of a lack of performance by the home team, the batter may think 'fuck, i'm going to get thrown out, and they're gonna grill me' and, presupposing the outcome to be negative, perhaps the player doesn't hustle, or slows up as the play is made. if the crowd has been encouraging and supportive, the player may think 'maybe he'll boot it. maybe i can get him to rush and throw it away' and the player runs ever so slightly harder to first, perhaps fulfilling that prophecy. the player reactions, despite their being 'professionals' and paid to play a game' are all natural human responses to the environment. positive environments bringing about a greater likelihood of positive responses to the environment, and a greater likelihood of turning challenges into opportunities which are increasingly taken advantage of, as opposed to negative environments brining about greater likelihood of negative responses to the environment, and a greater likelihood of turning challenges into obstacles which are increasingly stumbled over. given all that philosophical mumbo jumbo, booing the home team is dumb, as it is unlikely to make the team perform better, and is more likely to make the team perform worse. i want my team seeing opportunities, not obstacles. won't you please help them? feel free to boo from home, though. i'm not nuts enough to think that the negative energy you create in your tv room, basement, or the local bar, is going to have any impact on the game - you can't influence it if you're not there. Willets Point Apr 16 2008 03:40 PM This is something that's troubled me a lot as a Mets fan. As a child, I was drawn to the Mets because even though they were often awful the fans remained optimistic. They looked for and cherished the Mets Magic and miracles even if they came rarely. Fans would start a "Lets Go Mets" chant - without prompting - even with the team several runs behind in the ninth inning. When the Mets won it all in 1986 it made all that support and optimism justified. I was disgusted by the behavior of Mets fans at Shea and online last September. The Mets needed to win just 1-2 more games to make the playoffs, but instead of rallying behind the team to get those wins, the "fans" booed and vilified them. I was particularly disgusted by the scapegoating of individual players like Jose Reyes. At the time I made the analogy to Gil Hodges who during a desperate slump inspired Dodgers fans to gather together in prayer to end his batting troubles. I think not so many years ago, the type of Mets fans I grew up with would have rallied behind Reyes in a similar way. In Sept. 2007, they not only criticized his poor play but vilified his character as well. That's just wrong, and I seriously questioned whether I wanted to be associated with being a Mets fan after that. Eventually I decided I can only act for myself and be the most positive type of Mets fan I can be. The thing I kept hearing last September from Mets "fans" is that the team gave up. That may be true, but I believe the fans gave up on the team first. The fact that the Mets played before largely hostile crowds at home in the final weeks of the season is in my opinion a major contributing cause of the "collapse." Number 6 Apr 16 2008 09:17 PM ="Willets Point":2xueb28v]Fans would start a "Lets Go Mets" chant - without prompting - even with the team several runs behind in the ninth inning.[/quote:2xueb28v] Not to threadjack too badly, but boy, do I ever wish the Mets would run a promotion called "Quiet Day," when they wouldn't pump loud music and force-feed cheers and crowd noise constantly throughout the game. Alternately, it could be called "Learn To Cheer All By Yourself, You Ninny Day." Willets Point Apr 16 2008 09:53 PM ="Number 6":en7ovw52]="Willets Point":en7ovw52]Fans would start a "Lets Go Mets" chant - without prompting - even with the team several runs behind in the ninth inning.[/quote:en7ovw52] Not to threadjack too badly, but boy, do I ever wish the Mets would run a promotion called "Quiet Day," when they wouldn't pump loud music and force-feed cheers and crowd noise constantly throughout the game. Alternately, it could be called "Learn To Cheer All By Yourself, You Ninny Day."[/quote:en7ovw52] I'm down with that. It could coincide with a resurrected banner day. Btw, is it the chicken or the egg? Can fans not cheer without prompting from the PA system or has all the noise made it so that fans can't start their own cheers even if they want to? seawolf17 Apr 17 2008 04:43 AM Another missed opportunity for the Mets this year... one more Banner Day before the stadium closes. It's like the marketing folks are living underground. Fman99 Apr 17 2008 09:06 AM ="Willets Point":31lljaza]="Number 6":31lljaza]="Willets Point":31lljaza]Fans would start a "Lets Go Mets" chant - without prompting - even with the team several runs behind in the ninth inning.[/quote:31lljaza] Not to threadjack too badly, but boy, do I ever wish the Mets would run a promotion called "Quiet Day," when they wouldn't pump loud music and force-feed cheers and crowd noise constantly throughout the game. Alternately, it could be called "Learn To Cheer All By Yourself, You Ninny Day."[/quote:31lljaza] I'm down with that. It could coincide with a resurrected banner day. Btw, is it the chicken or the egg? Can fans not cheer without prompting from the PA system or has all the noise made it so that fans can't start their own cheers even if they want to?[/quote:31lljaza] Well there has been professional baseball games in the 'modern' era for 110 years, and the first 70 or so the fans somehow knew when to cheer and when to shut up. It's the Saturday afternoon Fox GOTW mentality. Casual fans are too dumb to know when they should cheer. All you need are lights and a manual scoreboard to show the count on the batter. Maybe a pipe organ for affect. Turn off all the rest of it as it's just noise. Benjamin Grimm Apr 17 2008 09:09 AM You see it as noise, and I do too. But for many fans, it's what makes a day at the ballpark entertaining. And that's why it's not going to go away. None of the teams want to replicate the 1910 baseball experience at the cost of thousands of paying fans. metsmarathon Apr 17 2008 09:29 AM i like the lights and the scoreboard animations and all that. 'whoop, there it is' when a met hits a home run, i think we can surely do without. maybe if they were able to keep current with the noisemakers instead of falling into tired cliches, it wouldn't be so bad... well, as far as celebretory songs anyways. the rest of the 'tell the fans when to cheer and how or else they won't' could go away, or be supplanted with more creative ideas. i dislike when they take something the fans do naturally, and turn it into a cheering-cue, like the jose-josejosejose-jose-jose thing. AG/DC Apr 27 2008 07:56 PM Sherman points to the obvious: http://www.nypost.com/seven/04272008/sports/mets/negativity_always_at_bat_108409.htm?page=0 Nymr83 Apr 27 2008 08:15 PM ]Btw, is it the chicken or the egg? Can fans not cheer without prompting from the PA system or has all the noise made it so that fans can't start their own cheers even if they want to? the whle thing for jose reyes started out as the fans, then the idiots decided that the fans needed prompting to keep doing it. oh and i HATE that whole "everybody clap your hands" thing. G-Fafif Apr 28 2008 06:08 AM Sherman writes: ]Yankee fans do the role call early in the game. Does that mean they call out each player's name and describe what his duties to the team are? Or that they are the most encouraging of souls? (Oh wait, the MFYs have nothing to do with any of this, but every columnist who used to cover them has to invoke them even when not writing about them. Silly me.) Post guy comes out against booing on Sunday, rain on Monday. Yippee. This will be anecdotal by necessity because, unlike Joel Sherman, I can't read tens of thousands of minds, but from where I sat on Sunday, boos did not pour down on Delgado's shiny pate after not taking a curtain call. He was applauded for his accomplishments and, when he didn't respond, it felt collectively shrugged off. Certainly in my section and, to my ears, in general. Carlos' reaction didn't at all feel like The Story while I was there on Sunday. Somehow I'm not surprised that it is in the papers and on the FAN this Monday. The dissatisfaction with a slumping slugger morphing into appreciation after he actually slugs reminds me of what George Foster experienced intermittently after being buried in his first year. He'd be booed, he'd break out, he'd be given a hero's greeting and then he'd be back to boos with the next couple of ohfers. Foster would tip his cap anyway. Didn't seem to win him any enduring points in the long run. AG/DC Apr 28 2008 01:53 PM Noble, Marty: Booing at Shea Stadium has become endemic and borderline shameful. Most folks who never have played the game at any level higher than Babe Ruth -- and I certainly am one of them -- have little sense of how difficult the game is to play. They appreciate success and demand it at all times. It's as if they believe a 25-0 season or .480 batting average would happen if the players put more effort into their performances. Because fans have the right to boo, they seemingly think it is their responsibility to boo, and they boo because they can. My sense of it is that a couple of thousand malcontents, still bruised by the events of last September, express themselves at nearly every opportunity -- even a leadoff groundout to short in the first inning. Then the followers follow as if booing is contagious. I suspect most of the boo birds would kill for an autograph and gush if they were to meet the same player they booed an hour earlier. The increased dissatisfaction among fans, I think, is prompted to some degree by the millions players earn and the intolerance for anything but success expressed by sports talk radio. Those shows harp on one or two isolated plays. One topic -- one misplay -- will be reviewed for 30 minutes. Even the hosts repeat themselves. If newspaper or Web sites were to react in the same way, you would read the same three paragraphs 20 times. The concentrated criticism and ridicule creates a distorted view of a play or the player(s) involved, and that misperception carries over to the people who attend games. More than ever, fans want to be part of the game, part of the in-stadium experience. I don't understand. When I was a kid, I went to ballpark to watch. I cheered the good plays and recognized the bad. I'm sure I booed a call I didn't like. I'm sure my father or uncle didn't allow me to boo anything else. New York likes to think of itself as a tough town. And I believe every high-profile, new player is tested by the fans; witness the boos for Johan Santana. Kevin McReynolds, a fine player, was booed far more often than he deserved. After he left he Mets, he said New York fans want a player to succeed, but if success doesn't happen, the fans' second preference is for abject failure. I don't think he was off the mark in that assessment. *62 Apr 28 2008 02:04 PM Booing at Shea didn't seem to be a widespread problem until after the fall to earth of the highly competitive teams of the mid-to-late eighties and 1990 .... after that, the crowds got progressively more ignorant each season. The collective intelligence these days doesn't even move the needle. AG/DC Apr 28 2008 02:23 PM That may be a late-comer to you and me, but its 18 years of Metfan ignorance. Metfan ignorance is old enough, in many countries, to appear in a pornographic video, or express legal consent to sexual relations with another. Metfan ignorance has the right to bear arms, own property, marry without parental consent, get an abortion, donate its body to science, and serve on a jury. With these new privileges come responsibility: Metfan ignorance would be tried as an adult in court. In the United Kingdom, Metfan ignorance can purchase tobacco, alcohol, pornography, go to war, vote, and model for pornography; (but reached the the age of consent at 16). Metfan ignorance can be admitted to, rent, or buy an MPAA-rated NC-17 movie. Metfan ignorance can play, rent, or buy an ESRB rated AO game. It's intolerable. Frayed Knot Apr 28 2008 02:32 PM ="*62"]Booing at Shea didn't seem to be a widespread problem until after the fall to earth of the highly competitive teams of the mid-to-late eighties and 1990 .... after that, the crowds got progressively more ignorant each season. Take the collapse of the post-'80s teams with "only" one WC to show, tack on the unlikeability of the squads that followed, add a pinch of the general reaction to the '94 strike, and then top all that with a decade-plus run of the cross-town team and those are ingrediants for the anger to be building for years. Met fans have sounded angry to me for going on 20 years now. They're merely angrier these days. ]The collective intelligence these days doesn't even move the needle. It's why I hate Met fans. G-Fafif Apr 28 2008 04:00 PM From a commenter named "the dude formerly known as bill l." on Brooklyn Met Fan, a couple of weeks ago: ]4/10/1976 Red Smith, New York Times �Temperatures were creeping into the upper 40�s, but a snaggle-toothed wind whistling in from left field lent a Joe Namath touch to an entertainment starring that other New York folk hero, Tom Seaver. This is a folk hero, incidentally, whom the folks welcomed back with boos because he earns more money than they do�� July 12, 1983 When Darryl Strawberry went to bat for the Mets in the eighth inning of Sunday�s game, many in the crowd of 17,666 at Shea Stadium booed. Strawberry has heard a lot of boos throughout his difficult rookie season. July 1, 1987 When Doug Sisk of the Mets complained earlier this season that he, Darryl Strawberry and Howard Johnson had been unfair targets of booing at Shea Stadium, they sounded like the latest victims in a phenomenon that started 26 seasons ago, at the beginning of the Mets� existence. The first player to draw the wrath of the crowd was Jim Marshall, one of the 25 original Mets. ��It was our opening home game on April 13, 1962, after we had lost our first two games in St. Louis,'� the outfielder-first baseman said. ��We were playing Pittsburgh at the Polo Grounds and Gil Hodges, a big favorite in New York from his days with the Brooklyn Dodgers, was supposed to start at first base. ��But Gil came up with a sore knee, so when the starting lineups were announced with me at first base, the capacity crowd let out with a long wave of boos. ��What do you think of that? Before swinging a bat or touching a ball, I was the first Met to be booed in New York.'� July 28, 1989 Carter Comes Back, but to Cold Shoulder Associated Press New York�Gary Carter would like the next two months to prove he can still play baseball. Fans at Shea Stadium needed much less time to decide. Carter came off the disabled list Tuesday and hit into a double play as a pinch hitter in the eighth inning. On Wednesday night, he started and was 0-3 as the New York Mets lost to Pittsburgh, 3-2. It was a humid night and the 40,000 on hand were not in a particularly charitable mood. With each out, Carter was booed just a little harder�� Mercury News Wire Services December 1, 1989, Page 8D, San Jose Mercury News (CA) Juan Samuel asked the New York Mets to trade him next week at the winter meetings in Nashville, Tenn., the New York Daily News reported today. Samuel was acquired June 18 for Roger McDowell and Lenny Dykstra, but he hit only .228 and had to endure booing at Shea Stadium, in part because he had replaced the popular Dykstra and Mookie Wilson. So Samuel told club officials he would not mind a trade. 8/24/98 NY Times �At a time when the Mets need all the help they can get as they battle for a spot as a wild-card entry in the playoffs, how does one account for the fans at Shea stadium booing Mike Piazza, their leading slugger, with an enthusiasm perhaps second only to their shouts to aatract the attention of the beer vendor? Newsday 4/4/2006 Beltran boos carry over. Byline: Wallace Matthews Apr. 4�Even in the best of times, it doesn�t take long for New Yorkers to isolate and attack a target. Yesterday, it took about a half-hour for Mets fans to lock on to Carlos Beltran. Who knows when they will let go? The boos rained down on the Mets� centerfielder early and often, pausing only when the final out of the game was made about two hours later and the home team had secured a 3-2 victory over the Washington Nationals. That was the direct result of Beltran�s peg from the left-centerfield gap to the glove of Anderson Hernandez to retire Jose Vidro trying to stretch a two-out single, but the cheers seemed more in response�� Daily News, April 12, 2008 �After being greeted with the longest and loudest ovation during Opening Day introductions Tuesday, Johan Santana had his official �Welcome to New York� moment Saturday. Flushing�s new ace and savior heard some boos at Shea as he departed the mound in the seventh inning of a 5-3 loss to .Milwaukee in his long-anticipated home debut.� SteveJRogers Apr 28 2008 04:31 PM ="Willets Point":2obz60rj]="Number 6":2obz60rj]="Willets Point":2obz60rj]Fans would start a "Lets Go Mets" chant - without prompting - even with the team several runs behind in the ninth inning.[/quote:2obz60rj] Not to threadjack too badly, but boy, do I ever wish the Mets would run a promotion called "Quiet Day," when they wouldn't pump loud music and force-feed cheers and crowd noise constantly throughout the game. Alternately, it could be called "Learn To Cheer All By Yourself, You Ninny Day."[/quote:2obz60rj] I'm down with that. It could coincide with a resurrected banner day. Btw, is it the chicken or the egg? Can fans not cheer without prompting from the PA system or has all the noise made it so that fans can't start their own cheers even if they want to?[/quote:2obz60rj] In another Met Online Fan Forum though that kind of attitude you are describing gets mocked with the Mets aggressive style of "in-your-face" PA antics. The "Everybody Clap Your Hands" the "Pepsi Party Patrol" t-shirt launch. The idea is that the Mets PA system is trying to create an image of the "real fan" and the fans on that board are replused by the idea that they (the Mets marketing department) know how real fans should act. AG/DC May 28 2008 07:27 AM So, Monday night, changing "Fire Willie!" in the ninth. Is that within the pale? seawolf17 May 28 2008 08:30 AM They only did it because Chris Rock told them to. metirish May 28 2008 12:09 PM Wayne Noble of Syracuse , in Colorado I think. Edgy DC Jan 02 2009 12:47 PM A I hearily endorse this thread as a Craney Nominee. Rockin' Doc Jan 02 2009 04:40 PM I am quickly coming to the conclusion that one of the prerequisites of a craney nomination is that I had little or no part in the thread. I think this is a great idea to nominate threads that contain great discussions and moments. We should get one or two more threads nominated and then start a thread for discussion and a poll for voting for the best thread of 2008.

metsmarathon wrote: adjusted ops... Thanks. Good to see the Colorado guy who plays half his games in Colorado off the list. No Colorado guys, please.

AG/DC wrote: You're right if you're honest. You're right if you're fair. You're right if you exercise the sort of perspective you expect anybody ot have in a social situation.... If Jose Reyes gets booed when he's hitting .220 because he occasionally dogs it to first, but not when he's hitting .350, though he still occasionally dogs it to first, you're not being honest. Okay. But Ordonez sucked. Right?

AG/DC wrote: I don't know who he saw.... The worst hitter I ever saw was Keith Neumann in ninth grade. Linda Roth whacked me with a stickball bat in fifth grade.... I'm still good. Never did get see Neumann. Or Roth.

AG/DC wrote: We're living in an era where a guy fails and we want to abuse him and find all sorts of moral reasons to attack him.... Not me. I would just like to say that Ordonez sucked. And even then, I say so only because Ordonez sucked. I probably wouldn't say that Ordonez sucked if only Ordonez didn't suck.

Triple Dee wrote: ="AG/DC"]Huh? What's over? Doug Flynn was a 57. Johnny LeMaster a 60. Considering they didn't play at the same time as Rey-Rey, how exactly does that disprove he wasn't the worst regular he ever saw (ignoring the OPS+ 32 he put up in 1997)? By the way, where are you getting those stats from, and are they adjusted stats that may be compared against stats from other seasons?

AG/DC wrote: Huh? What's over? Doug Flynn was a 57. Johnny LeMaster a 60. Yeah, Doug Flynn's a powerfully strong contender. But he racks up good points for being a good guy; for clocking in only 3 three full seasons as a Met where he played enough to qualify for the Batting Title; for playing on Met teams so pathetically bad that it wouldnt'a mattered if you swapped Flynn for Babe Ruth. In that case, the Mets would've merely been a better bad team. Flynn's Mets were irrelevant. Ordonez's Mets mattered. Check out the 1999 NLCS. Plus there's some regular poster here who recently wrote that Flynn was his favorite player, so I don't wanna get on that poster's s**t list. And also, 30 years ago I might have rooted for Flynn because back then I was young and stupid (instead of being 30 years older and stupid) . I didn't know any better back then.

AG/DC wrote: Well, sheesh, if you won't let me in your head,... It's for your own good. Trust me.

="AG/DC"]He was not specatacularly over-rated. The over-rated under-rated argument is such a tirelessly pointless exercise. I happen to agree with you a whole lot about the pointlessness of the over/under rated arguments. Still, I used the term to describe Rey's fielding skills, so now I'm sorta stuck. But according to some of the hype that was out there during the reign of Rey, he was supposed to be the best fielding shortstop. Ever. The Babe Ruth of shortstop defense. And yet one could argue, and back it up with statisitcs, that Rey was never even the league's best fielder. Not even for one season. Not ever and not by the combination of measures used to rate fielders. I don't want to make too big a deal of this because, like I said, I painted myself into the corner of over/under ratedness and in that corner, I'd be obligated to not only define his ability, but then correllate those actual skills with his percieved skills. And who am I to do that? Anyone is entitled to their opinion. And besides, I have no problem agreeing that Rey was a very good fielder. Just, you know ... overrated.

AG/DC wrote: And I'll add that he wasn't likely the worst hitter you ever saw. It's bad enough that half of Shea has forsaken any obligation to exercise perspective. He was the worst because in the super-secret imaginary ranking system of bad hitters that I keep inside of my head, Rey racks up major bonus points for the unjustifiable amount of playing time that he got. There were surely worse hitters than Ordonez whether I saw them or not, or whether I even want to admit that they exist. But no one that bad gets to play everyday for as long as Ordonez did. Besides, it's no fun to pick on some scrub who for his career, was a cup of coffee in the big leagues.

Rockin' Doc wrote: I was never a big fan of Rey Ordonez. He made some spectacular plays defensively, but I never thought he was quite as good with the glove as most Met fans did. Offensively, he was a black hole in the line up. That about perfectly sums up what I think. The absolute worst hitter I ever saw in my entire life of baseball watching, and a flashy though spectacularly overrated fielder.

Rockin' Doc wrote: Judging from the lengthy discussion of the "bunt" it seems that you were not alone in missing that. Well it's a good thing that I was corrected. Because I was sitting there in front of the TV, stewing about what I thought was another sac bunt. And then once I learned that there was no intentionally used up out in that inning, the Mets went on to score two more runs, which probably wouldnt'a happened if I continued to stew about that phantom sac bunt.

Frayed Knot wrote: Ummm, it wasn't a bunt, Church swung away and grounded to 1st while Reyes moved over. So then how did Reyes get to third? I thought he led off with a double.

="Frayed Knot"]batmagadanleadoff wrote: Ummm, it wasn't a bunt, Church swung away and grounded to 1st while Reyes moved over. Jeez. How did I miss that? batmagadanleadoff Apr 15 2008 07:26 PM Frayed Knot wrote: Ummm, it wasn't a bunt, Church swung away and grounded to 1st while Reyes moved over. So then how did Reyes get to third? I thought he led off with a double. seawolf17 Apr 15 2008 07:33 PM That commercial would have been way funnier if Cap'n Intangibles had either dropped the keys, threw them over the dad's head, or both. Although it certainly was realistic that he made a major production over catching the keys and tossing them to the guy. seawolf17 Apr 15 2008 07:35 PM The "42" thing was messing with my head early. We watched the entire pregame festivities upstairs, then put MiniWolf to bed. I then came downstairs and turned the game on. It was already 2-0 at that point, and Beltran was up in the bottom of the first. My immediate thought was "who the hell is #42 on the Mets?" I'm a moron. smg58 Apr 15 2008 07:37 PM I'd have given Duaner the 8th. Heilman has 8.2 innings in 11 games, and even if he weren't struggling, I think you need to be more protective of him. Nymr83 Apr 15 2008 07:38 PM i would give duaner the 9th if its still 4-0. did wagner pitch sunday? i missed the game, he hasnt been used much yet Rockin' Doc Apr 15 2008 07:40 PM Frayed Knot - "Ummm, it wasn't a bunt, Church swung away and grounded to 1st while Reyes moved over." batmagadan -"Jeez. How did I miss that?" Judging from the lengthy discussion of the "bunt" it seems that you were not alone in missing that. batmagadanleadoff Apr 15 2008 07:58 PM Rockin' Doc wrote: Judging from the lengthy discussion of the "bunt" it seems that you were not alone in missing that. Well it's a good thing that I was corrected. Because I was sitting there in front of the TV, stewing about what I thought was another sac bunt. And then once I learned that there was no intentionally used up out in that inning, the Mets went on to score two more runs, which probably wouldnt'a happened if I continued to stew about that phantom sac bunt. Nymr83 Apr 15 2008 08:02 PM thanks, Wright! we can now safely re-introduce Sanchez to the majors in the 9th. seawolf17 Apr 15 2008 08:02 PM I like this Wright kid. Gonna be a good player. themetfairy Apr 15 2008 08:02 PM I love that boy! mario25 Apr 15 2008 08:03 PM Classic Wright AB....It is almost like the pitcher's give in with 2 strikes...Wright wears them out seawolf17 Apr 15 2008 08:13 PM Welcome back, Duaner. Rockin' Doc Apr 15 2008 08:13 PM Maybe Wright and Reyes should consider wearing #42 every game. metirish Apr 15 2008 08:15 PM seawolf17 wrote: Welcome back, Duaner. Nice to see him back , good game all round. mario25 Apr 15 2008 08:21 PM Great job Mets...Welcome back Duaner Rockin' Doc Apr 15 2008 08:28 PM I love happy endings. Great game for the Mets. Particularly Mr. Wright, Pelfrey, and Reyes. Gwreck Apr 15 2008 09:35 PM Great game. Felt like 2006 again. (Welcome back Duaner!) Cold and colder but fortunately not windy so it was tolerable. *Great* to see Jose come back so strong. Pelfrey's 21 outs: 12 groundballs, 4 Ks, 2 flyballs, 1 lineout, 1 CS, 1 Bunt. Very encouraging. The (small) crowd had a nice hand for Duaner when he was announced into the game. Same crowd booed the crap out of Milledge, for reasons I cannot fathom. AG/DC Apr 15 2008 09:37 PM batmagadanleadoff wrote: ="Rockin' Doc"]Judging from the lengthy discussion of the "bunt" it seems that you were not alone in missing that. Well it's a good thing that I was corrected. Because I was sitting there in front of the TV, stewing about what I thought was another sac bunt. And then once I learned that there was no intentionally used up out in that inning, the Mets went on to score two more runs, which probably wouldnt'a happened if I continued to stew about that phantom sac bunt. Anger, fear, aggression. These things lead to the dark side. John Cougar Lunchbucket Apr 15 2008 09:56 PM I'm OK booing the enemy, it sure beats the ****rags who booed Heilman after a poorly struck pop fly landed for a double. Anyway, it started out a little frustratingly but ended up a fine, fun game. I showed up early and dorked it up for a few minutes in front of the SNY cameras for an upcoming slow-news-week episode of Mets Weakly. On my way to the shoot (I was late due to no 7 service from Times Square then local in a sardine can from Qns Plaza) I wound up milling around down on the field looking for the producer and bumping into Burkhardt, Ed Coleman, Keith Hernandez, Harold Reynolds, Jeff Wilpon, etc etc while the Mets took hiutting practice and finally some security guys informed me my badge didn't allow me field access. I finally found the guys up on the concourse. At the game we met Greg & Jason from Faith & Fear and had a good time hating on Castillo, remembering Jack Heidemann, discussing the merits of the Romantics (Pelfrey's warmup/batting song is "What I Like About You") and thinking maybe we were doomed until the 7th when we broke through again and realized Pelfrey'd gotten us pretty far pretty well. Who else entertained the idea that Pelfrey could have a good year today? I did. Reyes' final at-bat, going for the HR, was garbage, and I thought his triple was kind of stupid. I mean, it was a high fly that might have been caught or might have been a home run but shouldn't have been a triple. But his double was nice. Idiotic for Church to have bunted him to 3rd. Getting Duaner back was a pleasant surprise to me ... I had forgotten he was likely to return and like many in the park was surprised to see him trottting in. It was the perfect situation to reintroduce him. Got separated from those guys after the game and made my way to the 7 express by myself and wound up having one of those weird subway conversations. Then, strangely, Greg & Jason walked into the car. This was with a college chick who went to the game solo, brought a glove and was wearing flip flops and a jogging warmup on what was a pretty cold night (I had on 3 shirts, a leather jacket, gloves and a ski cap). Yes, it might have been the sexiest thing ever. She brought her glove. If you are single you should go post on missed connections at craigslist. Like, now. I mean, she was crazier than Church's bunt but she goes to Mets games by herself. On her way to W-burg, but didn't know she could cut 15 mins off her trip using the G or B61. I didn't know the postgame express 7 was actually Super Xpress and had to head back to QNS at Grand Central. Gwreck Apr 15 2008 10:27 PM ="John Cougar Lunchbucket"]I'm OK booing the enemy, it sure beats the ****rags who booed Heilman after a poorly struck pop fly landed for a double. Fair point, forgot to mention it. He's only been our best and most consistent reliever for three years. Stop the booing NOW. ]I didn't know the postgame express 7 was actually Super Xpress and had to head back to QNS at Grand Central. Sorry I didn't see ya there. My new method is getting off at Queensboro Plaza and getting the 61 there. AG/DC Apr 15 2008 10:37 PM The boobirds were despicable tonight. Hey, Met fans, you CAN have it all, but you're entitled to NOTHING. Triple Dee Apr 15 2008 10:57 PM JCL - there was lots of discussion about Mets "numerology" during the game , specifically: Seaver + Doc = Santana Randolph MFY + Randolph Mets = Jackie Robinson Keith's 1+7 = Yogi Berra. A Boy Named Seo Apr 15 2008 10:59 PM ]she was crazier than Church's bunt but she goes to Mets games by herself. Hilarious. That flip-flopped chick sounds like my soul mate. Painted toes or no? Gary and Keith had an inning-long chat about the booing and pointed out the stark home/road splits for guys like Beltran and Delgado and talked about how the Mets were the only team in MLB last year with a better road record than home. I'm sure there's more reasons for that than just booing, but fuck, man, support your guys. Triple Dee Apr 16 2008 04:20 AM The booing of Beltran was just insane. Was last night Metsblog Comments Poster Night, or something? Fman99 Apr 16 2008 07:00 AM Great game all around. I love watching Big Pelf use his stuff to get hitters out. Wright, Reyes, Sanchez, me happy. John Cougar Lunchbucket Apr 16 2008 07:45 AM Big Pelf's 3rd inning or whatever, when he got the popup and the strikeout was sexy as all hell. That's what really encourages me about Pelf -- he's finally getting some whiffs.

Reyes gets sac bunted to third from second with nobody out. Statistically, Randolph increases the Mets chances of scoring one run by a negligible amount while simultaneously crushing the Mets chances of scoring big. What a waste given that the Mets middle of the order is the team's strong point and has been for Randooph's entire tenure.

Reyes, leading off, needs a HR for the cycle. Plus there's the added benefit that if he HR's, there's a decent chance that Randolph won't sac bunt with the #2 guy.

Nymr83 wrote: thats true, he was on wfan before the game wailing about the mets inability to add the knockout blow when they are winning, well, bunting will do that to you. And if he honestly believes that he's playing for the big inning, well then he just doesn't get it. The Mets are up 2-0 but obviously there's a lot of game left. Say, by how many games was it that the Mets missed the playoff last year? One .. right? Just one?

mario25 wrote: [the sacrifice]doesnt matter - Beltran DP Let's not let 'em off the hook so easy. Church could've homered, or at least singled him in. And then, at least one more batter would've come to bat on top of that. I'll give Willie this, though. With Reyes on second and nobody out, the sac bunt eliminated the risk of that 4-5-4-6-4-6-3 double play where Reyes gets caught in a rundown and the batter is doubled up going to second. Happens all the time whenever Reyes leads off the inning and winds up on second before an out is ever made. With Reyes on second and nobody out, all I see is a double play threat. Plus, under the right conditions Reyes could score from second without the ball ever leaving the infield. Randolph obviously prefers one run innings over the big 4-5 run knockout punch innings. And if he says otherwise, we'll he doesn't play it that way.

="AG/DC"]What circumstandical evidence? What the hell are we talking about? If somebody states that Willie Randolph hates David Wright and somebody else starts talking about it as if it's accepted fact and building other arguments on that, I think we want to back up and get some support and sourcing before we inculturate it as a given. *** I'm talking about a lot of assertions we're running with in this thread. That you might be challenging my Bobby-Rey observation is fair enough and deserves some followup over and above the flippant and unsupported comment that I wrote earlier: ("I know that Valentine couldn't stand Rey") I'd be the first to tell you that I don't know Valentine personally, never even met the man, and so unfortunately, could never supply you with a secret stash of first-hand Bobby V quotes that would settle this matter once and for all. And so there's not gonna be any wild first-hand account here about me and Bobby V. celebrating a Met win by carousing late at night in the back of our limo, surrounded by a pleasant mix of some of the hottest supermodels of that month and those wild and barely legal DeRoulet women, with Bobby V all the while standing straight up through the limo's open sun-roof and into the night air, shouting through the streets of late night New York City that "Rey Ordonez sucks". "Ordonez is an asshole and me saying so is proof that I don't like Rey". Over and over and over again. Or how New Yorkers would shout back at us: "Big effin deal. We know Ordonez sucks. We're smart trendy New Yorkers. And besides, isn't it a truism that Rey Ordonez sucks? So quit boring us sophisticated New Yorkers with your tired cliches (which is a lot like like a truism - true but so obvious that it's not worth mentioning) about how Ordonez sucks and how it proves that you, Bobby V., don't like Rey and just tell us if A-Rod's demands were really unreasonable. Or is it that you work for a bunch of cheap bastards who like to show up at the Ferrari dealership to brag about how much money they have and then all they ever do in the end is kick the tires around a little bit. Because A-Rod is the thread topic so tell us about that, Bobby V". So did Valentine dislike Ordonez? It's my opinion that he disliked Rey, hence the "I know" in my quote. Perhaps it's the way Valentine would shoot down Ordonez to the press whenever members of the media would cite Rey's RBI totals as evidence of Ordonez's supposed improved hitting skills. Valentine would remind the press that RBI's are contextual by nature, and have as much if not more to do with the batters in front of Rey. In that situation, wouldn't just about every other manager that ever existed simply agree with the press (sincerely or insincerely) just to throw a compliment to the player (whether deserved or not). Perhaps it's the way those two would alway clash on those all too few days when Ordonez would be rested. Rey would pout as if he was Lou Gehrig in the middle of a consecutive games played streak, putting up such a stink over being rested that you'da thought he was leading the league in Home Runs or something. A few times, Rey demonstrated his displeasure at being rested by feigning injuries, as if to show that he couldn't play anyway because he wasn't 100% (I don't think Rey could play at 250% - haha), not because he was being benched. (and don't start up with me about prove the feigning) And so then, Bobby would respond by extending Rey's rest for yet another game. And then Rey would pout some more about being benched some more even though he wasn't supposed to be able to play anyway (here I mean literally as opposed to qualitatively) on account of him being hurt. According to him. Perhaps it's the way it appeared, especially after the 1999 season that Valentine couldn't compliment Rey in the press unless it was done so grudgingly. Or that during the month of Melvin Mora at shortstop, when the majority of the press argued that Mora wasn't as effective as Ordonez, Valentine not only defended Mora, but referred to Rey in the press not by his name but as "that other guy" and with a look of bothered displeasure at the notion that someone could even dare to think that Rey was better than Mora. I don't know that any of these facts individually, proves that Valentine disliked Rey. But cumulatively, and especially given Rey's dreadful performance, they lead me to believe that Valentine was no fan of Rey. And so, I can write that "I know that Valentine disliked Rey" comfortable in the sincerity of my beliefs, and that my beliefs are based on something tangible, as well as an instinct that overall, Ordonez sucked and that somebody had to see it like this besides me. Just because Ordonez was an everyday player doesn't automatically mean that Valentine was going along with it. Look, I know that Ordonez is a very controversial Met topic. Ask a random sample of Mets fans to give you their Ordonez opinion and you are bound to elicit answers that vary in the quality of opinion, maybe more so than for any other Met ever. I could write five more pages here, filled with statistical details, facts, notions, superstitions number crunching and all-around bullshit to explain my Ordonez opinion, which most of you already figured out, is not too high. But I don't need to do that because you are all very knowledgeable Met fans. Some of you might not agree with my ultimate opinion of Rey, or anticipate the precise minutiae that I would rely on to justify my less than stellar opinion of Rey, but given your impressive Mets knowledge, you would all surely agree that any discussion of Ordonez would begin with the irrefutable facts that he was a bad hitter and a good fielder. That's the starting point and I'm sure nobody here would disagree. The battles would then be fought over trying to determine just how bad of a hitter he was? Or just how good of a fielder he was? And overall - ("overall" being the key word because really, you can't separate Ordonez in two, filtering out the bad and keeping whatever good one might think there is or ever was) - overall, was Ordonez good enough of a fielder to compensate for his ineptness at the plate and justify his playing time. I'll save that one for another day, content to simply write that Ordonez sucked when the mood strikes me without beating a dead Ordonez to death.

Triple Dee wrote: I thought [AG/DC was] talking about the [PED] statement I made about Alomar I thought he was talking about my "Valentine hated Rey" comment.

Triple Dee wrote: Nowadays circumstantial evidence seems sufficient to try ballplayers. If others are fine by that, then so am I. Whaddya mean? And whaddya mean by this: Triple Dee wrote: Gee, which is more surprising; 1. The Genius disliking one of his own players; or 2. Somebody else disliking Rey-Rey. Who's "somebody else"?

AG/DC wrote: Can we stick to truisms that have some substantive support before accepting them as facts? Aren't all truisms, by definition, true? Still, which "truism" are you referring to?