Zvon

I love this. Nolaxas! St. Yogi! Putzylvania!

dinosaur jesus wrote: Zvon wrote: Ceetar wrote: That said, it's important not to get distracted and so focused on taking the perfect picture that you don't actually absorb the moment. This would be my problem. For me it would be a trade-off. I want the perfect picture so I'll concentrate on that and "see" it later. The whole thing might just be my problem. Because I don't think of a photographer looking thru a viewfinder (old style-not digital) the same as I do a person viewing something on a screen thru a device. And there's really not much of a difference. Yikes, I'm such a dinosaur. I'm the dinosaur here. This is one of those issues that puts me in full curmudgeon mode. People walking through a museum, for instance, stopping at each famous painting just long enough to snap a picture, then moving on to the next. I wish that were illegal. I realize a ball game is different, because you can see as much or more through your viewfinder, and look at it again (and share it) later. But to me, the difference between watching with your own eyes and watching through a camera is the difference between actually being there, part of the experience, and standing apart from it, like a tourist. If I had a way with words I'da said that^.

seawolf17 wrote: I'd be afraid the small print would wash out on a shirt really quickly. A poster, however... I agree a poster would be the way to go. Parachute Guy should make the cut. Zvon, it was that book that had me drawing baseball stadia for a long while. If you're going to add the broadcast booth, don't forget to make space in it for Lindsay Nelson next to those other two guys. You'll have to lobby for Lindsay Nelson. Convince 14 year old me that he wasn't a traitor. You draw? Do you want to add anything to the poster? That would make it a real community project. That goes for anyone who wants to add anything. Didn't Straw hit the scoreboard once? I don't recall the details. Anyone? Has any other Mets hit the scoreboard? I'm thinking Delgado might have.

Not finding the Nats game on TV.

Ceetar wrote: That said, it's important not to get distracted and so focused on taking the perfect picture that you don't actually absorb the moment. This would be my problem. For me it would be a trade-off. I want the perfect picture so I'll concentrate on that and "see" it later. The whole thing might just be my problem. Because I don't think of a photographer looking thru a viewfinder (old style-not digital) the same as I do a person viewing something on a screen thru a device. And there's really not much of a difference. Yikes, I'm such a dinosaur.

Ceetar wrote: Zvon wrote: The commercial that has McCutchen making that great play at the wall-- I find it totally insane that fans right in front of the play were not looking at it with their own eyes, but through there devices--but this commercial thinks this is the proper way to experience life, so what do I know? hmm. maybe. But what is so special about 'actual eyes' versus super-HD camera? When people say they "saw it with their own eyes" aren't they often just meaning they saw it live? This is seeing it live, with all the same crowd-energy and what not. It's just also recorded. Anyway, I'm more concerned with how they got such crisp shots of a moving target from what appears to be angles they couldn't possible have been at. If you don't know the difference between watching something with your own eyes and watching something on a screen, I'm not going to explain it to you. But it seems, to the younger set, and like in the commercial, they are considered the same thing. I don't agree. Those people saw it live in the same sense that I saw it live on TV. Can't you take pics on those things w/o having to look thru them? I'd want to take pics but I would not want to take my eyes off that play.

Ed said:The two different facades on the inset external illustrations. Are you referring to the OF wall & Scoreboard? If you are referring to something else lemme know Ed. I am using the old classic scoreboard and OF wall. The one above uses a mix of the classic and final -a midway version. I do want to find a way to work in the more recent SB/OF look. I think an external would be the only way to go. I'm going to need more blank space around the stadium. [fimg=400]https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-Q0pphRGSQX4/VDGXkuKNfYI/AAAAAAAAU-Y/wH0IwpVA22k/s1042/sn4611mackpolo.jpg[/fimg] ^ ^ These inset illustrations in the lower left and lower right corners. They are inside baselines for Polo Grounds, but they likely would be different for Shea, because the perspective would be different. But I would use those two spots for illustrations of the two Shea exteriors --- the tile-coated Payson exterior and the neon-ballplayer-adorned Doubleday exterior. In fact, I hereby move that these two skins be forever referred to as the Payson Exterior and the Doubleday Exterior. If this works out well, can we do a shirt? I don't know how legible it will look on a shirt, but sure. The image will end up being wider than I assumed, making for more blank space to add stuff. If I was thinking shirt I'd try to make it more square, which can be done at this point. Just add more space to the top and bottom instead of the sides. Bundle everything above and below. I am not sure if I want to adjust the layout. It might lose the look I'm going for, which is a Mack type layout. I'll give this some thought. I may do a rectangular and a square version. Now with the external Shea's, you are referring to the differences in the Stadiums outer shell, correct? If so that's a great idea that fits right in. Keep in mind this work will be in B&W and some changes won't be as obvious as they would be/look in color. But the two different Shea outer shell looks should play well in B&W. I also want to focus on the scoreboard/OF wall changes but I may drop that idea -or add another insert, above it. When I get this crowd done I'll try and put up a list here (during tonights games) of all the Metly things chosen for use. So far all the things chosen are pretty main stream. I'm looking to include obscure stuff. Like, exactly where did the black cat come from out of, or from underneath, the stands? I'd like to point to that exact spot (and maybe add a trail arrow of the cats path in front of the Cubs dugout). Also, about the Met Walk ( '73 playoff: Rusty,Yogi,Mays,Seaver,Jones)- I already added an arrow path (all additions do not have to be permanent) showing Gils path when walking out to pull Cleon in '69. 1) Did that happen at Shea or on the road? 2) It's the same path for the "MetWalk". Should I add the "MetWalk" to it, or should it trump the "Gil to Cleon" walk and bump it? I'm thinking "MetWalk" trumps/bumps "Gil2Cleon" walk.

Wow, that's excellent. Thanks for posting that. Do you know if that's done by Gene Mack? I figure he probably was long gone by the time the Shea one was done. What does the scoreboard say? Is that one in left about Rose, and is the bottle actually hitting him? If I had a clearer copy I'd use the 69/86 pennants right off that one (easy to remake tho). Ed said:The two different facades on the inset external illustrations. Are you referring to the OF wall & Scoreboard? If you are referring to something else lemme know Ed. I am using the old classic scoreboard and OF wall. The one above uses a mix of the classic and final -a midway version. I do want to find a way to work in the more recent SB/OF look. I think an external would be the only way to go. I'm going to need more blank space around the stadium. I could make this an animated .gif where the scoreboard changes thru it's different looks, but we'll lose clarity and I'm afraid the text might end up unreadable (hey, maybe a future project-the evolution of the scoreboard). I think all of the things chosen in that 80's one will be included. Any suggested cuts? There might end up being an issue with space. First to cut for me would be the Dykstra homer. I'd rather not give the mound to Bunning, although his perfecto was the best completed work on that hill. His classic game does deserve mention...and maybe even the mound. I think Seavers 10 in a row trump that. I mean, that has not been repeated, no? Who gets it, Bunning or Seaver? There could be room for up to 5 portrait sketches. 4 for sure (corners). 3 minimum. Unfortunately Gooden will not be one of these (at least using up that much real estate-he'll get a few mentions, maybe a small portrait-I can use any/all of the portraits done in that old 86Mets drawing of mine) Casey, Seaver, Gil? (should Gil be one? Who else should get an insert tribute sketch?) Here's a thought- small to medium size portrait sketches of the top 8 all time position Mets, and r/l/pen pitchers. Shea itself is looking good and I'm glad I went with this back/above view as opposed to the standard offside look. I'm adding the crowd which is monotonous work.

Edgy MD wrote: And a couple of Angels' fans end up beating a guy to the brink of death. I was gonna say sore losers, but both the attacker and victim wore LAA stuff. People are strange.

It has started to pour there.

1...wow,off the pitcher, bare handed from 2nd

2..

The Royals need 3 more outs. 8-3

Frayed Knot wrote: According to TBS announcer guy, the team with the best record in the majors has never been swept in the LDS round of the playoffs. So I guess that'll make it officially stunning if KC hangs onto this win! I can't think of a better word. 8-2 STGOTRS*bows before TRS

[fimg=555]http://s3.amazonaws.com/media.wbur.org/wordpress/10/files/2013/07/0726_OAG-George-Brett.jpg[/fimg] "...George is getting excited!"

Shea will be laid out like this. I'm already considering a side insert that shows the TV booth with a nod to Murph and Kiner. I think that's the only thing we lose in this view. The lil cartoon is an example of a historic arrow/point. I can take some of Macks original stuff and rework it, or draw the cartoon myself and scan it if I can't find one to fit. There are a bunch of other stadiums done up here by Mack. I love his stuff. Look at Wrigley http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?84778-1946-47-Sporting-News-Sketches-of-Major-League-Parks-by-Gene-Mack-Full-Set-of-14

WHOA! Look at all this leather. I officially jump on The Royal Wagon.

The commercial that has McCutchen making that great play at the wall-- I find it totally insane that fans right in front of the play were not looking at it with their own eyes, but through there devices--but this commercial thinks this is the proper way to experience life, so what do I know?

d'Kong76 wrote: Ok, and you keep backing people on it! I think the media does that, generally speaking. WHOA! The Royal Surge continues as Moustakas takes one out. 6-2, see the glory of The Royal Surge Just replace Scam with Surge: F9D6TkKZW7Q

d'Kong76 wrote: Zvon wrote: The media does tend to latch on to a word and beat it into the ground. I'll back you on that. Oh, jeez ... it was a from a sports feed. Nothing beaten into the ground at all. I meant just in general. Stunning has plenty of play left, jury is out on that. It just started. We'll see if it pops up more. If the Royals continue this run I'm betting it does.

Papa Pujols goes BOOM. 5-2 & Kendrick just missed one by >< this much.

These little blue Royals might be goin' places. 5-1 KC

batmagadanleadoff wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: Wow. These Royals are for real! They answer right back in the 1st. Knocks the Laa's pitcher right off the mound already. Holy schmoly! 3-1 KC in the 1st. These Royals are freakin' stunning. If you were watching earlier, one of the talking heads on TV did use the word "stunning". I chuckled. I can't prove this, so I'll probably get it for saying so, but I believe that the media's using the word "stunning" to describe the Royals in this series, simply because they're ahead of the Angels -- i.e., the wild card survivor beating the team with baseball's best record. They'd describe the series as stunning even if the Royals beat the Angels three games to two. The media does tend to latch on to a word and beat it into the ground. I'll back you on that.

Fail. Maybe. Whatever. Once again, Schaefer is not meant to be a scientific way of evaluating player performances. It's just for fun, a revival of something from the 1970's. Or... you can think of it as a cumulative stat. Colon led the team in Schaefer points, just like he did in innings pitched. Sure, deGrom had a better year, but you wouldn't give him the Innings Pitched title, would you? Kinda harsh Bats. This is done for fun. And make-believe beer. IMO Colon does deserve it. He was here to anchor the staff, win hopefully half his games, and put those innings in his belly.... I know it's for fun. And we once had this discussion. Implementing an accurate scoring system would make the process extremely tedious and suck out most of the fun. I know that. But still, you get to gave your fun, and I get to thumb my nose when Colon emerges as the undeserving 2014 Pitcher of the Year. Think of poor old Jacob deGrom. How do you think he feels getting gypped out of an award he should've won? It's not all about Bartolo. That's how things work. "Pitcher of the Year" implies "best pitcher", not "most often used pitcher". And I get to have my cake and eat it, too. I get to enjoy the super duper retro '70's style cards Grimm puts out, and get to point out the major flaws in the system. And I get to do all this even though I haven't cast a single Schaefer vote this season. So who has it better than me? deGrom knows he had his shot. He did not want to be put on a shelf. He lays in bed at night and knows deep inside he pitched better than his SCHAEFER METS PLAYERS OF THE YEAR, 2014 point total indicates. deGrom thinks that putting 200 innings in your belly is a major part of a starters job description and deserves serious beerage. deGrom says: "I shall return for all the beer next year!"and Harvey says:" Whoa, wait a minute there rook.." to which Jacob adds," yea, rook OF. THE. YEAR." I'm sorry, I forgot what this was all about. Oh, yea, you being kinda dickish. Carry on. Seriously thou, one drawback in the system is that when a pitcher has a game where he pitched good and the team hit great, the pitching usually takes the hit in point distribution. And it's tough to divy up reliever points in a way that gives the role the proper gravitas. Sometimes I wish I had 10 points just for pitchers and 10 for players.