HBP

The Mets are currently losing to the Phillies (8-0 in the sixth), but they've hit two Phillie batters (Ryan Howard and Shane Victorino) with pitches, which has made me happy. The Mets have been playing with some grit lately under Terry Collins, but I still think what they need, and have needed since the beginning of 2008, is to get into a brawl. They need something to help them cohere as a group. The 1986 Mets got into four brawls during the season, and, while the game is different now and that is an outrageous number, one or two wouldn't hurt.

"We would have been safe" (and game six)

I just finished re-reading Jonathan Safran Foer's Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close to teach it tomorrow, and even though this was the sixth or seventh time I have read it, the last quarter of the book still makes me cry. It concludes about as happily as it possibly can--Oskar's father is still dead (no magical realism here), but he solves the mystery of the key, he and his mother are reconciled, and he realizes he has to/will be able to move on with his life--though the actual ending is heartwrenching. Oskar's final words, "We would have been safe" (326), signify the final loss of his childhood innocence, which is normally a healthy, important moment of growth. Foer does such a good job of making readers care about Oskar, though, that we hope he can just stay protected and happy forever. Oskar grows up instead, and we are left with the fact that for all of our childhood nostalgia, we live in a world where, as Abby Black says, "people hurt each other" for no good reason, even when we try our best not to (290).


Oskar's last sentence, coupled with the flipbook that shows a body falling back up into the World Trade Center, is also a public lament for Americans' pre-9/11 hopeful naivete that we were somehow in the violent, messy world, but not of it. We all share that desire for safety, but as Oskar says, "In the end, everyone loses everyone" (74), so we must confront the danger and live our lives to the fullest.


Anyway, to cheer myself up I watched the tenth inning of game six from the 1986 World Series. It still always amazes me that the Mets win; I get nervous every time I watch it.


Today I watched both halves of the inning (usually I just watch the bottom half), and it was shocking how much it looks like Boston is destined to win. I can't imagine having watched it as a Red Sox fan. Just before Dave Henderson hits a home run to put Boston ahead, NBC replayed his home run from game five of the ALCS, so it plays like he was pre-ordained to hit another one. Shortly thereafter, there is a shot of Henderson and Bill Buckner with their arms around one another in the dugout, laughing. Later in the inning, Buckner comes up with a runner in scoring position and Rick Aguilera hits him. Buckner glares out toward the mound and the home plate umpire has to get in front of him and guide him toward first base. This reaction is completely ridiculous on Buckner's part because there is no way Aguilera would be throwing at him intentionally. It is like the baseball gods punish Buckner for his reaction in the bottom half of the inning. As gods are wont to do, their punishment far outweighs the crime.


My favorite part of the bottom half of the inning* is Ray Knight screaming with joy to the heavens (I use this term intentionally--Knight explicitly thanks "the good Lord" in his post-game interview with Marv Albert [so does Mookie Wilson]) as his teammates mob him after he scores the winning run. It looks like he is barely able to breathe, like he is drowning in a sea of Mets. It is also wonderful how once the run crosses the plate Vin Scully stops talking and just lets the crowd noise and the camera shots speak for themselves.


* For those of you unfamiliar with the bottom half of the inning, here's a re-creation of it using the old Nintendo game RBI Baseball with the original NBC audio:

Sunday Afternoon Sports Stuff

Overall, this has been a pretty good sports weekend. The Mets crushed the ball and pitched rather well against the Diamondbacks in their three-game sweep, Manchester United beat Everton to continue their run to a record nineteenth league championship, and (almost as good in terms of the chuckle it gave me) Arsenal lost to Bolton Wanderers to basically end their title challenge.


For better or worse, Sunday sports results always really affect my mood going into the week. It's nice to get this week started on a good note--the Mets winning, the sun shining.

facebook, I give you the best minutes of my life

I haven't been blogging much lately, mostly because I am spending most of my leisure computer time on facebook. I wrote recently about how Scrabulous is a major obsession, but, since the Major League Baseball season started last week, updating my Mets cheers and brawling via facebook's fan application is also taking a lot of my time. I reached "Regular" status in less than a week, which I think is quite respectable, especially considering that the majority of Mets fans on facebook are still at the "Bat Boy" or "Rookie" level. The administrators of the application need to update the jerseys, though, since John Maine is the "Rookie" level jersey, and Carlos Delgado is the "Regular" level jersey. Aside from the fact that Maine is no longer a rookie, I'm sure many Mets fans would place Maine ahead of Delgado in terms of their importance for the Mets' success this season. Also, Pedro Martinez is the "Ace" level jersey, and, with no disrespect meant to Pedro, Johan Santana clearly belongs in that category now.

Mets back on track

The Mets' 13-0 win against the Marlins tonight was quite encouraging. The pitching was good, everyone was hitting, and the Mets finally hit a few homers. David Wright's homer was most significant because last season he went over a month before he hit his first one, but now he already has the first one out of the way. Now Carlos Beltran and Carlos Delgado need to hit their first, and we'll be set.

It is discouraging that Pedro Martinez will be out for 4-6 weeks, but one silver lining is that now Mike Pelfrey has a guaranteed spot in the rotation for now, so he doesn't have to put extra pressure on himself thinking that he'll only have one or two starts to prove himself. Now he can just go out there and focus on each game as it comes.

As I am writing (9.18 p.m. Central Time), Alex Rodriguez just struck out in a clutch situation for the Yankees. It's nice to know that some things never change.

Also, the Phillies lost again tonight.

Thoughts on Opening Day

I am quite pleased by the Mets' 7-2 win against the Marlins today. The Great Santana had one of the best Opening Day starts in Mets history (only Tom Seaver had more strikeouts on Opening Day - 9-8 - than Santana), the bullpen didn't allow any runs, David Wright had two hits and three RBI, Jose Reyes also had a good game, and no one got injured. The only disturbing aspects were that Wright and Reyes each got caught stealing, both rarities. But overall it was a great start to the season, especially since the Phillies also lost.

I was not pleased by MLB.tv's technical problems. Apparently the site crashed because so many people were trying to watch it this afternoon. You would think that they would have extra bandwidth available in anticipation of Opening Day, but no. So I had to follow the game on ESPN.com instead of watching it live. Arggh.

2008 Topps baseball cards

6.09 p.m.

On 2 March 2008 I wrote about how baseball cards have changed since I was a kid, and how it is now very hard to find stores that carry them. This afternoon I was at a Walgreens and there was a box of 2008 Topps wax packs by the register, and I was so happy to see them that I bought a couple (yes, I fell victim to impulse-buy product placement). I was very surprised at some of the changes that have been made, many of which contradict my aforementioned post on the subject. Here's the rundown:

- There are only seven cards per pack (seven!), instead of 15 when I was a kid. So two 2008 packs = less than one 1987 pack, but there's an extra stick of gum in the 2008 half of the equation, so I suppose that helps if you are a kid that is excited by the gum (which always used to be terrible).

- The cards seem slightly smaller than they used to be, but maybe this is just an optical illusion stemming from either a) I'm (obviously) bigger physically now than when I last collected seriously, or/and b) the smaller pack size makes the individual cards seem smaller as well.

- As mentioned above, there is now a piece of gum in each pack! This excites me even though the gum will still probably be horrible. I don't know if this practice is just returning this year, or if it came back a year or few ago, but I do know that for at least ten years there was no gum. My assumption is that the gum is new again this year because there is a bright pink circle on the bottom right of the front of each pack which proclaims that they "Contains Gum!"

- The wrapping is transparent, which aside from the number of cards per pack is the biggest shock to me. When I started collecting in 1987, Topps rack packs (rack-packs? rak-paks?) were still transparent, but by 1990 they were wrapped in opaque cellophane so that buyers couldn't sift through the packs to find the ones with better cards showing and buy those first. I have never seen wax packs with clear wrapping before. I took advantage of this new feature to sift through the packs at the top of the box, and picked out a pack with a Miguel Cabrera on top, (which will be valuable if he keeps his weight under control and keeps hitting the way he has the first few seasons of his career), and one with Shawn Green on top, because even though he's retired now it's still a Mets card.

- The packs were 99 cents each, which is less than Topps wax packs have been the past few years, but is still a lot, considering that you only get seven cards.

- The design is pretty cool - sort of retro '70s. Topps' designs were best in the mid-1960s through the early 1980s (1988-89 were decent as well), so I am glad they are going back to this era of design.

Okay, now I am going to open them. Full report in just a moment.

6.33 p.m.

Immediately there is a problem - unlike '80s wax packs, which opened quite easily, the 2008 wrapping cannot be opened by hand without bending the cards inside. So you better have some scissors handy, and hope you're steady-handed enough (good luck eight-year-olds!) to cut the wrapping without cutting the cards.

6.36 p.m.

The gum is twice as big now as it was in the '80s, and is in its own wrapper! This means that there won't be gum stains on the cards, and that the gum might actually be fresh. Awesome! Also, it means that if you buy more than one pack at once, you can chew once piece and save the rest for later.

The gum tastes pretty good, but is very tough even though it is elastic enough to no longer bursts into razor-sharp shards when you bite into it. I fear for my fillings' safety.

6.39 p.m.

Pack 1 includes:

Miguel Cabrera #10 (in his photo he is already Photoshopped into a Tigers uniform, it looks like the photo was taken at Shea Stadium. From what I hear, Johan Santana's card has him Photoshopped into a Mets uniform.)
Red Sox Postseason Highlights World Series Game 4 #234 (I always thought the concept of postseason cards was cool, and was sad that Topps no longer made them in the '80s, so I'm glad they're back)
Johnny Estrada #139
Jake Peavy (sweet!) #50
Jim Thome (also not bad) #240
Mark Loretta #292
Mark Reynolds (with Diamondbacks just spelled "D-Backs" - this abbreviation is bad because my mind goes immediately to "D-Bags," and I know I am not alone) #83

6.45 p.m.

The gum is already nearly tasteless and is still almost impossible to chew, so I'm spitting it out.

Pack two includes:

Shawn Green #107 (Let's Go Mets!)
Mickey Mantle #7 (with his complete career statistics on the back and no other explanation. Odd.)
Brandon Phillips #255
Carlos Zambrano #155 (also not bad)
Vladimir Guerrero #90 (very good)
Kameron Loe #313
Esteban German #189

This must be a small series since the highest card I got was #313 and I also got five All-Star-type players (a very high concentration) not counting the Mantle card. But there isn't any indication on the wrapper about what series number it is (i.e., I assume there will be another, higher-numbered series released at some point this year), or how many cards are in the series. That's rather annoying. Back in the '80s when the Topps sets always had 792 cards, "792" became a mythical number like "755." It makes me feel old that this has changed.

Mets by the Numbers and baseball cards

I began reading Jon Springer and Matthew Silverman's Mets by the Numbers yesterday, which is a print version of the excellent website http://www.mbtn.net. The book is also quite good. My favorite feature of it so far, however (I've read through #17), is not the writing, but the reproductions of Topps baseball cards from throughout Mets history. All of the cards have photos with visible uniform numbers. Tom Seaver, David Wright, Keith Hernandez, and Darryl Strawberry have cards on the cover, but lesser lights are also represented, e.g., Bobby Valentine (as a player, p. 3), Tim Teufel (p. 56), Felix Millan (my favorite '70s Met aside from Seaver and Lee Mazzilli, p. 89), Kevin McReynolds (p. 115), Hank Webb (p. 150), and so on. My only complaint about this feature is that the 1990 set - by far the ugliest Topps set ever - is represented seven times: Gary Carter (p. 39), Todd Hundley (p. 46), Bob Ojeda (p. 99), Howard Johnson (p. 104), Kevin Elster (p. 110), Frank Viola (p. 139), and Jeff Innis (p. 200). All of these players were with the Mets for multiple seasons, you would think that their uniform numbers would be visible on at least one of each of their cards from other years. But maybe not. Anyway, thank God the card reproductions are in black-and-white, because if they were in color the hellacious color combos of the 1990 set would give some readers seizures.

The book's card reproductions make me nostalgic for my childhood, when I spent virtually all of my allowance during the summer on baseball cards, much to the chagrin of my parents, who thought I should save money instead. I began collecting in 1987 because I wanted cards of the Mets' 1986 championship team. Back then a wax pack of 15 Topps cards and a stick of gum cost 45 cents (I never liked Fleer or Donruss; in 1991 I bought Score instead of Topps, probably because my eyes were still traumatized from the aforementioned 1990 Topps set). One time (1989) I bought an entire box of wax packs, and it only cost $14. Now, you're lucky to find a pack on sale for less than $2, and you get fewer cards (12? I'm not even sure anymore) and no gum. Also, you used to be able to buy baseball cards everywhere, and now they are very hard to find. Not even Wal-Mart sells them. This saddens me - baseball cards were my introduction to baseball literature, they were how I grew to love the game itself (not just the Mets), but now a generation of children are growing up without this resource.

Intellectuals' attitudes toward sports

Following up on a point from the Bacon essay I just posted, yesterday (28 February 2008) on his excellent Uni Watch blog (http://www.uniwatchblog.com) Paul Lukas wrote a bit about how his artsy intellectual friends don't understand his obsession with sports. I also share this problem. All of of my intellectual/artist friends, including my wife, who is a sculptor, think following sports is a waste of time, and don't understand why I am so passionate about them, especially baseball, which they view as the most boring sport ever (a puzzling viewpoint, since baseball is widely regarded as the most "intellectual" of the four major North American sports [yes, I still count hockey as a major sport]).

I think this anti-sports attitude (which is not simply a lack of interest, but an active dislike of sports) among intellectuals is simply a form of snobbery. Because the less-educated often like sports, sports are viewed as being somehow "beneath" those of us with advanced degrees. This view may stem from a patriarchal privileging of activities of the mind over activities of the body (though sports are, of course, activities of both).

Detritus in old books

This afternoon a used copy of Roger Angell's Season Ticket (1988) that I ordered came in the mail. In it was an old bookmark from "Books Inc. Since 1851" located in the Stanford Shopping Center, no city or state listed. Also, there was a postcard with a picture of a ballgame at Fenway Park and the words "Red Sox" at the bottom left along with their sock logo. The message field of the card is blank, but it is addressed to a Brian Harwell in Bogota, Colombia. No return address.

I always used to throw away whatever leavings were in old books that I acquired, but lately have been keeping them. I find them to be interesting pieces of the books' histories. A few months ago I found an Eastern Airlines ticket stub from 1983 or '84 in a chess book I purchased, and about a year ago there was a Book-of-the-Month-Club invoice in a Doris Lessing novel. I've also found old, sometimes almost disintegrated, store receipts in a number of used books (the only one I remember specifically from recent times was in Ludek Pachmann's autobiography; it was bought at Brentano's, I forget which branch). It's always interesting to see where the original owner purchased a book, and for how much.

Can't wait for baseball

I am so excited for baseball season! Over the past few days I've been getting so excited thinking about the Mets that I've felt light-headed. This afternoon I purchased tickets for their game on May 27 against Florida. I'll be visiting New York for a few days, so it will be my last visit to Shea Stadium. Depending on whether there are any rainouts before that game, Johan Santana or (more likely) Pedro Martinez should start for the Mets, either of which would be awesome to see.

When I lived in the city as a kid my dad would take me to 3-5 games a season, and sometimes my entire family would go. My first game was as a five-year-old in 1985 against the Braves. Dwight Gooden pitched and the Mets won something like 14-4, and I was hooked. My second game was Hat Day in 1986, the Mets lost 2-1 to the Astros, but that was okay because they got revenge in the NLCS. I think Mike Scott pitched the game I was at, but I'm not sure.

Strawberry vs. Piazza

I mentioned in a post yesterday that I thought Mike Piazza was the best Met ever offensively. In thinking about this statement, I realized that one could also make a strong claim for Darryl Strawberry to receive this honor. So let's compare the two and see what we come up with.

Strawberry played for the Mets from 1983-1990. In 1109 games he had 3903 at-bats, from which he produced 252 homers, 733 RBIs (both the most in Mets history), 1025 hits, and a .263 batting average.

Piazza played for the Mets from 1998-2005. In 972 games he had 3478 at-bats, from which he produced 220 homers, 655 RBIs (both second-most in Mets history), 1028 hits, and a .296 batting average.

Looking at these numbers, the two played for the team for approximately the same length of time, though Piazza played in fewer games because he was injured for much of his last three years as a Met (he never played more than 129 games in those seasons). Piazza's only deficits when compared to Strawberry are 32 homers and 78 RBIs. So if Piazza had been healthy those last three years, he would have come very close to Strawberry's numbers if he didn't pass them.

Therefore, because the numbers are so close, it is also necessary to think about the size of the role each player played in their teams' offense. In this category, Piazza clearly has the advantage. While Strawberry played in line-ups including Keith Hernandez, Gary Carter, and Howard Johnson (whose 192 homers are third in Mets history), Piazza had very little offensive help during his Mets tenure - John Olerud and Robin Ventura were it. So while opposing pitchers couldn't pitch around Strawberry much because of the other guys in the line-up, in many cases they could pitch around Piazza. This factor causes me to give my vote for the best Met ever offensively to Piazza. Of course, if defense were brought into the equation, Strawberry would have a large advantage there, but since we're just talking about offense, Piazza gets the nod.