metsmarathon

i do not wake up early enough... this is what i get for trying to catch up all at once - had i simply posted my points for this game instead of finishing off the entire pirates series, i'd've gotten it in in time.

Nymr83 wrote: ="seawolf17"]Exactly... Ozzie was the best shortstop of his generation. (Cal Ripken notwithstanding.) Omar can't even come close to claiming that. Ozzie is not better than Alan Trammell. based on...?

is there some sort of preferred attire? i just sent in a john maine, but i'm not thrilled with him...

that'd be great if the mets ever decided to play football...

yay...

i think valadius just leapfrogged you...

rats... beat me to it...

damn, as i go hunting thru the nl, valadius hits the al...

if its not charlie hickman, that giant with 86 errors at the hot corner in 1900, then its gotta be lee tannehill with 76 for the chisox in '03, then, right?

6. billy brubaker - 225 rbi career, 102 in '36 for the pirates

is the an at bat limit on #7?

8. rusty staub

8. ed kranepool

missed the who. sorry. i figured war-year fill-ins was the right ticket...

metsmarathon wrote: well, garrett atkins is more correct than ryan howard... 6. elvin clark adams

well, garrett atkins is more correct than ryan howard... elvin clark adams

but i don't want to...

6. garret atkins

7. leiter

i wonder how ozzie smith stacks up on the 5-tool checklist... ralph kiner had only 22 career stolen bases, and was a below average fielder, apparently, for his career. should we kick him out? willie stargell had 17 career stolen bases, and was another below average fielder. does he get the boot as well? when we argue whether or not typical players belong in the hall, do we start with their defense, or do we see how they stack up on their offense? and then, if we need a little extra juice to push a player over the top, is it not only then that we measure out their defense, and typically only then if it helps a player? if edgar martinez had played an awful first base instead of excellently riding the pine between at bats, would anybody be clamoring too loudly to hold it against him?

i'm deeply deeply disturbed by the last graph there...

SteveJRogers wrote: ="metsmarathon"]SteveJRogers wrote: Okay, I'm going to do my own little barmoter going forward. You would think that if the Mets were doing 50,000 every night that all of the Upper Deck concession stands would be open. Especially on weekend afternoons/evenings. Ditto with the Yankees. I'm going to keep track of how many times they are actually open from now untill the new ballparks are open. An informal poll for sure, but if they are doing 50,000s you'd think the Upper Deck stands would be open, even if a 40,000s night is a rareity. i would suggest that your study would be meaningless without something to compare it against. ok, so there's some number, as you say, of upper deck conession stands that are not opened. is that number high? low? typical? have they added more vendors to offset the closed windows? without a baseline and some context against which to compare it, it really doesnt matter, does it? Okay, how about just the fact that the last sections on both the right field and left field lines are rarely filled during the spring and summer months? There is some context there. what point are you even trying to make? that the mets know in advance whether or not they are likely to sell out the stadium? that's easy, what with the ease of purchasing tickets prior to a game. i would wager that the mets can predict to with in a thousand or less, what the game's attendance will be based solely on advance ticket sales. knowing that, why would they open concession stands when there would be no fans to use them? if the point is that the stadium doesn't fill likeit used to, i don't think hte evidence at all supports that notion, unless they're somehow doing a better job of filling in the stands more densely than they used to - instead of spreading everybody evenly around the park, they pack in the nearest sections first. as we've seen/shown, there aren't fewer people in those stands. there's actually quite a bit more.

SteveJRogers wrote: Okay, but you haven't answered the question, other than shoehorning tons of luxury suites and restaurants and such (which could actually be the only reason) why then, if the Mets are getting 50s consistantly is Citi Field looking at a capacity crowd of 45,000 (plus they are going to have Wrigley style standing room according to the Mets.com website) Is it because they just aren't getting those extra 10,000 people on a consistant enough basis to have 81 near capacity dates? because by reducing the supply of available seats, they increase the demand for those available seats to such an extent that they believe that they are able to make more money by drawing fewer people into the stadium at higher prices than they would have by drawing more people at lower cost. this demand, it is believed, should be sufficient to boost attendance during periods wherein the team may not perform in such a fashion as would be deserving of high attendance - kinda like how the garden was sold out every night until only just recently when the knicks got so bad that even the demand for those games couldn't sustain it. the knicks were AWFUL but they still sold out the builiding far longer than you would have expected. why? because there was such demand to go see a knicks game because hte supply was so very limited compared to that demand. and by increasing demand, you increase the attention your team gets. the knicks weren't selling out the garden because basketball is so much stronger than baseball is in new york - they were doing it because the demand was greater as a result fo the supply being so restricted. this is also why the nfl does so well, btw. 16 games a year, only 8 at home, until the theoretical maximum of four postseason games, and not only does going to the game become in demand, but merely watching it on television enjoys increased demand. bottom line - basic capitalism. supply goes down, demand must go up, and with it, prices. supply goes up, demand goes down, and with it, prices.

SteveJRogers wrote: Okay, I'm going to do my own little barmoter going forward. You would think that if the Mets were doing 50,000 every night that all of the Upper Deck concession stands would be open. Especially on weekend afternoons/evenings. Ditto with the Yankees. I'm going to keep track of how many times they are actually open from now untill the new ballparks are open. An informal poll for sure, but if they are doing 50,000s you'd think the Upper Deck stands would be open, even if a 40,000s night is a rareity. i would suggest that your study would be meaningless without something to compare it against. ok, so there's some number, as you say, of upper deck conession stands that are not opened. is that number high? low? typical? have they added more vendors to offset the closed windows? without a baseline and some context against which to compare it, it really doesnt matter, does it?

average attendance at a met game this year is 46,092 average attendance at a home game this month is 51110, while in july it was 50123. the mets haven't played a home game to fewer than 40,000 fans since monday, june 18th against the twins. only once this season did they play to were than 30,000 fans, wednesday, may 2nd, against the fish, when only 25,236 showed up. the mets drew 50,000 TWICE in all of '86. twice!