Master Index of Archived Threads


NO-HAN.

soupcan Jun 04 2012 11:26 AM

This is the first chance I've had to upload all of this stuff. So I was at the game just by chance on Friday and it was just great. Lots of fun as you can all well imagine. Here's a really bad video I took of the last pitch: [youtube]tl2WW8Ytkl4[/youtube] Here's a picture of drunken me and my fat drunken friends: And here's my scorecard (that I bought after the game was over and filled in the next day...): I know that you can all relate when I say that as a boy I really, really wanted to be at the game when a Met threw the first no-hitter. It had been a few years since I thought about that but it was really a big deal to me as a youngster. I remember whenever Craig Swan - and later Gooden - were scheduled to pitch I tried as hard as I could to get to those games on the chance that it might happen. The fact that I had tickets to Friday's game was just pure luck and I was this close to giving them to a client. We were cocktailing fairly strongly and didn't notice that he had a no-no until about the 5th. People were paying attention but I was confident it wasn't going to happen - as I'm sure all of you were. The game got incredibly exciting in the 7th and when Baxter made that catch I thought - well.....maybe. But honestly, I didn't really. Even in the ninth inning I was making bets that it wouldn't happen. Yes I paid out $60 as a result but hey, best $60 I ever spent right?

metirish Jun 04 2012 11:35 AM Re: NO-HAN.

Very cool, good for you that you were there.... read after that while Cohen openly mentioned the no no Howie refrained from it......

Benjamin Grimm Jun 04 2012 11:36 AM Re: NO-HAN.

I'm with Gary on this one. I want my announcers to tell me what's going on. I don't want them to be coy.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jun 04 2012 11:41 AM Re: NO-HAN.

Didn't hear the radio broadcast but I'm sure Howie made it clear to listeners what was happening. I'm sure he played up the "no mention" thing as schtick even it was schtick he believed in.

Edgy MD Jun 04 2012 11:43 AM Re: NO-HAN.

Yup. Plenty of honest and illuminating ways to play that game for an old pro like Gary. And he was dead on. The last two innings, Duquette barely said a dozen words.

Centerfield Jun 04 2012 11:47 AM Re: NO-HAN.

This could never happen to me. If I tuned into a Mets game, I immediately looked to see if a hit had been given up. Until one was given, I was definitely aware of it. If not in the forefront, but somewhere in the back of my mind. I never realized how much this affected the way I watch a game. I wonder if this will continue to happen. Most likely it will, and when the first hit is given up, I'll say "Well at least we have the one." If so, this means I will think about Friday's game EVERY GAME I WATCH.

metirish Jun 04 2012 11:47 AM Re: NO-HAN.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Didn't hear the radio broadcast but I'm sure Howie made it clear to listeners what was happening. I'm sure he played up the "no mention" thing as schtick even it was schtick he believed in. yes, I should have said Howie didn't use the term no-hitter according to Neil Best Cohen spoke openly during the game about the unfolding no-hitter; Rose opted to avoid using that term for fear of jinxing Santana.

Ceetar Jun 04 2012 11:52 AM Re: NO-HAN.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Didn't hear the radio broadcast but I'm sure Howie made it clear to listeners what was happening. I'm sure he played up the "no mention" thing as schtick even it was schtick he believed in. First thing he said when I turned on the radio in the top of the ninth "The Mets have all 8 hits in this game"

Benjamin Grimm Jun 04 2012 12:01 PM Re: NO-HAN.

Coyness. Ugh!

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jun 04 2012 12:17 PM Re: NO-HAN.

I've seen it several hundred times* since Friday, and your video of that just gave me chills, Soups. Letting the idea of a jinx influence your job performance is stupid if you're a ballplayer; it's just plain embarrassing if you're a broadcaster. *No hyperbole.

Edgy MD Jun 04 2012 12:19 PM Re: NO-HAN.

You had to be there.

Gwreck Jun 04 2012 12:43 PM Re: NO-HAN.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Letting the idea of a jinx influence your job performance is stupid if you're a ballplayer; it's just plain embarrassing if you're a broadcaster. *No hyperbole. But did Howie Rose let it affect his job performance? Of course not. If the radio listeners are too stupid to figure it out with Howie saying it eight different ways OTHER than the exact phrase "no-hitter," then, well, too bad.

Benjamin Grimm Jun 04 2012 12:49 PM Re: NO-HAN.

I think being coy does affect his job performance. He's supposed to clearly describe what is going on to his audience. If he's doing otherwise out of some silly superstition, I think he's wrong.

Fman99 Jun 04 2012 12:50 PM Re: NO-HAN.

I watched the first five innings on television and listened to innings 6 and 9 on the radio. I did not realize it was a no hitter until the sixth.

Ceetar Jun 04 2012 12:51 PM Re: NO-HAN.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I think being coy does affect his job performance. He's supposed to clearly describe what is going on to his audience. If he's doing otherwise out of some silly superstition, I think he's wrong. he's telling a story, and a large portion of the audience is invested in the jinx/don't mention it story. There are plenty of fans that get on Gary for jinxing things.

Benjamin Grimm Jun 04 2012 12:53 PM Re: NO-HAN.

Ceetar wrote: he's telling a story, and a large portion of the audience is invested in the jinx/don't mention it story. That's their problem.

Ceetar Jun 04 2012 01:08 PM Re: NO-HAN.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Ceetar wrote: he's telling a story, and a large portion of the audience is invested in the jinx/don't mention it story. That's their problem. they're the client.

Benjamin Grimm Jun 04 2012 01:09 PM Re: NO-HAN.

So am I. And I prefer not to be served the lowest-common-denominator stuff.

soupcan Jun 04 2012 01:22 PM Re: NO-HAN.

Doesn't the fact that Gary said it and yet it STILL happened sort of dispel the whole jinx notion from here on out anyway...?

Gwreck Jun 04 2012 01:27 PM Re: NO-HAN.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I think being coy does affect his job performance. He's supposed to clearly describe what is going on to his audience. What exactly is unclear about the following? "The Cardinals haven't had a hit today." "The Mets have all eight hits in the game." "The only Cardinal baserunners were from Santana's four walks." It's not "coyness." It's using a variety of different phrasings. Howie's not the Gameday app.

Nymr83 Jun 04 2012 01:34 PM Re: NO-HAN.

soupcan wrote: Doesn't the fact that Gary said it and yet it STILL happened sort of dispel the whole jinx notion from here on out anyway...? Obviously Beltran's "hit" was a result of Gary jinxing it on the air and we were simply fortunate the umpire missed it.

Edgy MD Jun 04 2012 01:35 PM Re: NO-HAN.

There certainly wasn't lack of clarity. Not to be coy, but whether you believe in a superstition or not, there's an upside to honoring them.

Frayed Knot Jun 04 2012 01:36 PM Re: NO-HAN.

The fact that he's doing all that verbal gymnastics simply to avoid the 'N-H' word is silly. And the whole stupid thing about this so-called 'Jinx' is that it's supposed to apply to mentioning it to the pitcher himself for fear of reminding him or heaping on extra pressure. That it somehow morphed into announcers not being allowed to say it to listeners or you not saying it to your buddy on the next barstool is a bit mind-bending.

metirish Jun 04 2012 01:39 PM Re: NO-HAN.

Frayed Knot wrote: The fact that he's doing all that verbal gymnastics simply to avoid the 'N-H' word is silly. And the whole stupid thing about this so-called 'Jinx' is that it's supposed to apply to mentioning it to the pitcher himself for fear of reminding him or heaping on extra pressure. That it somehow morphed into announcers not being allowed to say it to listeners or you not saying it to your buddy on the next barstool is a bit mind-bending. Yes ,and now we can add twitter to the list outlets where saying no-hitter can cause a jinx , pretty sure Heyman got abuse for mentioning the no-hitter in progress.

Edgy MD Jun 04 2012 01:39 PM Re: NO-HAN.

There was no verbal gymnastics. It was clean, neat, and clear. Silly? Sure. It's baseball. No animals were harmed however.

Benjamin Grimm Jun 04 2012 01:41 PM Re: NO-HAN.

Especially since, for every no-hitter EVER, there was somebody, somewhere, who mentioned it. To think that the whole world is honoring this nonsense is absurd. And I'm not saying it's harmful, or that I'm angered or upset about it. I'm just saying that I'm on "Team Gary" on this issue. I want my announcers to say the words "no-hitter" or "perfect game" when they're applicable.

Benjamin Grimm Jun 04 2012 01:42 PM Re: NO-HAN.

Edgy DC wrote: Not to be coy, but whether you believe in a superstition or not, there's an upside to honoring them. Not that I can see.

Frayed Knot Jun 04 2012 01:42 PM Re: NO-HAN.

Edgy DC wrote: There was no verbal gymnastics. When there's a no-hitter going on and the announcer paid to tell you what's going on avoids saying that there's a no-hitter going on then, yeah, that's verbal gymnastics.

Edgy MD Jun 04 2012 01:45 PM Re: NO-HAN.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Edgy DC wrote: Not to be coy, but whether you believe in a superstition or not, there's an upside to honoring them. Not that I can see. Seriously. When there's a no-hitter going on and the announcer paid to tell you what's going on avoids saying that there's a no-hitter going on then, yeah, that's verbal gymnastics. Come on. Is this really an issue of him not earning his pay?

Benjamin Grimm Jun 04 2012 01:49 PM Re: NO-HAN.

Well, if there are web pages that say that superstition is good, then it must be true.

batmagadanleadoff Jun 04 2012 01:50 PM Re: NO-HAN.

Edgy DC wrote: There certainly wasn't lack of clarity. I dunno. Me and you can decipher the wordplay buy my seven year old rabid Mets fan cousin might not figure it out.

Edgy MD Jun 04 2012 01:53 PM Re: NO-HAN.

Well, if there are web pages that say that superstition is good, then it must be true. Many of which are professional journals and academic theses. Does this really have to be a divisive issue? Is there any human on earth who feels he or she was poorly served, deceived, or left confused by Howie Rose?

metirish Jun 04 2012 01:55 PM Re: NO-HAN.

Edgy DC wrote: Well, if there are web pages that say that superstition is good, then it must be true. Many of which are professional journals and academic theses. Does this really have to be a divisive issue? Is there any human on earth who feels he or she was poorly served, deceived, or left confused by Howie Rose? Not at all, his call of the last SO was a thing of beauty, I'm going to cut Howie some slack here, we all know he's a huge Mets fan and like the rest of us didn't believe it until it happened. I don't think he was unprofessional , John Sterling he is not(although I like him too).

metirish Jun 04 2012 01:58 PM Re: NO-HAN.

Speaking of verbal gymnastics .....listening to the Fan this morning and they played a clip of the Seattle announcer doing pbp with the bases loaded....this was his call......"the sacks are packed with seamen...........um, Mariners" it was hilarious....

Ceetar Jun 04 2012 01:59 PM Re: NO-HAN.

Johan Santana was sitting by himself in the dugout. The not mentioning the no-hitter thing is part of the story. It's a baseball tradition. It's part of the whole allure and mystique behind the statistical anomaly.

G-Fafif Jun 04 2012 03:11 PM Re: NO-HAN.

The euphoria continues at Huffington Post (by yours truly). My standard reaction of appreciative applause and vicarious grins for all those no-hitters tossed by admirable strangers in vaguely familiar uniforms was subject to blackout when it came to what I was experiencing via the television from Citi Field. This was an occasion for hyperventilating, for hugging, for literal tears of joy. The lack of a no-hitter among Mets pitchers had grown into a communal thread of angst within the Mets fan culture in recent seasons. We'd always known we hadn't had one. Of late, as soon as a Jimmy Rollins or a Brian McCann delivered a clean single in the first or second inning, we'd taken to reminding each other en masse that we weren't getting one for yet another night (thanks, Twitter). The curiosity had grown into an obsession. When would we get our no-hitter? June 1, 2012 revealed itself as the answer. I haven't settled down from the realization yet, and neither has any Mets fan I know. We weren't familiar with how these worked from the inside, so we're still getting used to it. We love getting used to it. We could get used to getting used to this for an eternity, to tell you the truth. So if you came out into the cable sports television town square last Friday night and noticed a commotion and wonder why you're still hearing a palpable buzz emanating from our neck of the woods, please understand that it's all too new and all too beautiful for us to put a lid on so soon.

Edgy MD Jun 04 2012 08:58 PM Re: NO-HAN.

I tell you, I was sitting here alone with my wife downstairs. When the final strikeout was recorded, I put my hands together for what I thought would be a clap. It extended into three claps. "That's enough" I thought, but my hands wouldn't stop going. "There's nobody here for your claps to be speaking to" I thought, but it felt better and better to keep going and going. Twenty, thirty claps, all alone, for no reason. Something just kept pouring out of me. Very strange, acting the fan at a level I never knew I had, never knew existed. Only comparable moments would be the Agbayani homer and the Ventura homer, both watched at home, but even those I had my wife beside me and the TV in front of me. For me and Johan, it was just the dark night and the radio --- and 40 years of fandom.

Zvon Jun 04 2012 09:00 PM Re: NO-HAN.

That is so kool you were there soupcan :) Were you nervous at all in the 9th. Ive been to one no-hittier (Wilson Alverez-91or92) and I remember in the ninth I was so nervous cause I wanted it to happen so bad, I wanted to see one live so bad. I can see from the bets that you didn't think it was actually gonna happen, but didn't it effect your nerves at all?

themetfairy Jun 04 2012 09:05 PM Re: NO-HAN.

Any of you who doubt Jon Stewart's fandom need to watch the opening segment of tonight's Daily Show when it's repeated tomorrow.

batmagadanleadoff Jun 04 2012 09:48 PM Re: NO-HAN.

Johan to be placed on a hard 90 pitch count for next few starts. http://espn.go.com/blog/new-york/mets/p ... le-santana

bmfc1 Jun 05 2012 05:03 AM Re: NO-HAN.

themetfairy wrote: Any of you who doubt Jon Stewart's fandom need to watch the opening segment of tonight's Daily Show when it's repeated tomorrow. http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-j ... ts-history

Ceetar Jun 05 2012 06:23 AM Re: NO-HAN.

G-Fafif wrote: The euphoria continues at Huffington Post (by yours truly). good job, and man, you're everywhere. If someone opened the curtain to the Mets Blogosphere and it was determined you were writing each and every one of them, I wouldn't be surprised.

themetfairy Jun 05 2012 07:19 AM Re: NO-HAN.

themetfairy wrote: Any of you who doubt Jon Stewart's fandom need to watch the opening segment of tonight's Daily Show when it's repeated tomorrow. You can watch the clip here.

soupcan Jun 05 2012 07:36 AM Re: NO-HAN.

Zvon wrote: That is so kool you were there soupcan :) Were you nervous at all in the 9th. Ive been to one no-hittier (Wilson Alverez-91or92) and I remember in the ninth I was so nervous cause I wanted it to happen so bad, I wanted to see one live so bad. I can see from the bets that you didn't think it was actually gonna happen, but didn't it effect your nerves at all? Not nervous at all. Probably because I was so completely certain it wasn't going to happen. Excited sure, but nervous? Nope.

soupcan Jun 05 2012 08:10 AM Re: NO-HAN.

themetfairy wrote: themetfairy wrote: Any of you who doubt Jon Stewart's fandom need to watch the opening segment of tonight's Daily Show when it's repeated tomorrow. You can watch the clip here. I'm seeing a pattern among Mets fans who were at that game and took a personal little video...

Centerfield Jun 05 2012 08:12 AM Re: NO-HAN.

Silly, pointless things in baseball (not exhaustive): 1. Mascots 2. Keeping score. We have online pitch by pitch accounts of every game available on your phone in real time. 3. Singing "Take Me Out to the Ballgame" during the 7th inning stretch of ballgames. Presumably, anyone singing is already at the ballgame. 4. The 7th inning stretch 5. Caring about what 25 guys who have no idea who you are do on a field against 25 other guys who also don't know you. 6. Rally caps. 7. Standing and taking your hat off during the Star Spangled Banner. 8. Superstitions

Gwreck Jun 05 2012 09:04 AM Re: NO-HAN.

#1 "God Bless America" --- #999 Everything else Also: 2. Keeping score. We have online pitch by pitch accounts of every game available on your phone in real time. You're wrong on this issue. Additionally, cellular service is something between horrible and non-existent at most parks. Aside from San Francisco, I don't think there is free wifi in any of the parks.

Chad Ochoseis Jun 05 2012 09:48 AM Re: NO-HAN.

Gwreck wrote: 2. Keeping score. We have online pitch by pitch accounts of every game available on your phone in real time. You're wrong on this issue. Additionally, cellular service is something between horrible and non-existent at most parks. Aside from San Francisco, I don't think there is free wifi in any of the parks. I think the sarcasm content of CF's post was higher than Johan's game score. That was 90, which ties him for seventh highest by a Met since 2000. Caring about no-hitters is another one of the silly, pointless things in baseball that makes baseball worth watching.

Ceetar Jun 05 2012 10:02 AM Re: NO-HAN.

Gwreck wrote: #1 "God Bless America" --- #999 Everything else Also: 2. Keeping score. We have online pitch by pitch accounts of every game available on your phone in real time. You're wrong on this issue. Additionally, cellular service is something between horrible and non-existent at most parks. Aside from San Francisco, I don't think there is free wifi in any of the parks. I get decent cell service at Citi. occasionally it flops when I try to upload a picture to Twitter, but it's pretty good.

Zvon Jun 05 2012 02:37 PM Re: NO-HAN.

soupcan wrote: That is so kool you were there soupcan :) Were you nervous at all in the 9th. Ive been to one no-hittier (Wilson Alverez-91or92) and I remember in the ninth I was so nervous cause I wanted it to happen so bad, I wanted to see one live so bad. I can see from the bets that you didn't think it was actually gonna happen, but didn't it effect your nerves at all? Not nervous at all. Probably because I was so completely certain it wasn't going to happen. Excited sure, but nervous? Nope. Wowzers. I would have been a wreck. From home I was excited and a little nervous, not nearly as much as I was at the no-no I witnessed. If I was at Citi for the game, in the 9th I would have been a slibbering, slobbering pile of jitteryjoo.

Vic Sage Jun 05 2012 02:54 PM Re: NO-HAN.

I didn't realize that jitteryjoo was customarily piled. Boxed, perhaps, or canned, maybe. or stored in a mason jar, most likely... especially if it was of the slobbering variety of jitteryjoo. Otherwise, it would just get everything too damp.

Zvon Jun 06 2012 04:02 PM Re: NO-HAN.

I was gonna go with mass of jitteryjoo, but I don't cover all that much ground.

G-Fafif Jun 07 2012 01:43 PM Re: NO-HAN.

Go back in time and buy a ticket for the June 1 game from the Mets.

seawolf17 Jun 07 2012 01:44 PM Re: NO-HAN.

Dick move, Mets. "Dad! Dad! I know how we can get an extra two million bucks out of our idiot fans!"

G-Fafif Jun 07 2012 01:50 PM Re: NO-HAN.

Guy from the New Yorker opts to go home early from history because his kid was a little chilly. All around us, tired children have retreated onto laps. Hoods are tightly drawn, and hot chocolate has been located. Some of us stand, while others penguin-huddle for warmth. To go or to stay? The boy is tired. It seems cruel to keep him here, even with a chance of history in the offing. I was there the night when… Guy from the Times, there with his family, pretty blase about it, too, all things considered. With my wife and two children, we were four of the 27,069 officially in attendance, and four of the many more who may eventually claim to have been there. We have the ticket stubs and Facebook posts to prove it. What we do not have is any credentials as Mets fans, long-suffering or otherwise. Sorry. We crashed your moment. Regular fans, watching and listening elsewhere, pretty certain these guys suck.

G-Fafif Jun 07 2012 01:51 PM Re: NO-HAN.

seawolf17 wrote: Dick move, Mets. "Dad! Dad! I know how we can get an extra two million bucks out of our idiot fans!" They can put on sale what they want, and nobody has to buy it, but geez, yeah.

themetfairy Jun 07 2012 01:55 PM Re: NO-HAN.

G-Fafif wrote: seawolf17 wrote: Dick move, Mets. "Dad! Dad! I know how we can get an extra two million bucks out of our idiot fans!" They can put on sale what they want, and nobody has to buy it, but geez, yeah. For $5 each, with proceeds going to charity, it would be a cute idea. But $50 each? Sheesh - totally classless.

G-Fafif Jun 07 2012 01:58 PM Re: NO-HAN.

Way to get a jump start on the next curse.

bmfc1 Jun 07 2012 02:11 PM Re: NO-HAN.

The Mets might as well make a few bucks off of the no-hitter, other people will via "collectibles." During the game today, WFAN had a commercial for a commemorative bat (limited edition, of course), sold by a private company, with a facsimile of Johan's signature. I find it odd that a no-hitter is supposed to be remembered with a bat.

G-Fafif Jun 07 2012 02:16 PM Re: NO-HAN.

bmfc1 wrote: I find it odd that a no-hitter is supposed to be remembered with a bat. Sort of like commemorating Jeff Wilpon with a BLANK...

Benjamin Grimm Jun 07 2012 02:17 PM Re: NO-HAN.

BRAIN

Ceetar Jun 07 2012 02:20 PM Re: NO-HAN.

G-Fafif wrote: seawolf17 wrote: Dick move, Mets. "Dad! Dad! I know how we can get an extra two million bucks out of our idiot fans!" They can put on sale what they want, and nobody has to buy it, but geez, yeah. And people _are_ going to buy it right? I'd rather they have done a commemorative bobblehead or something though. I mean, they're in the business of selling us baseball. We make a, rightfully so, huge deal out of this. It only makes sense for them to continue to sell it to us.

Edgy MD Jun 07 2012 02:22 PM Re: NO-HAN.

Yeah, I have no problem with it. I'm certainly not going to buy it (I've got my New York Times), but I have no problem with it.

batmagadanleadoff Jun 07 2012 03:21 PM Re: NO-HAN.

I'll betcha that those collectors who've been plunking down a c-note for a season ticket stock ticket of that game (Bobby O on the ticket face) are gonna be pissed about this. The sellers, too, I suppose.

Ceetar Jun 07 2012 05:19 PM Re: NO-HAN.

Wouldn't be surprised if the Mets saw the demand and figured why not make it legitimate. That's sorta the idea about dynamic pricing right? to try to cut out the middle man? but hey, it's a nicer stub than what most casual fans got, so why not? I might be tempted if I'd been there and had a dedicated Mets area.

SteveJRogers Jun 21 2012 03:54 PM Re: NO-HAN.

RA may steal the June Cranepool Forum Schaefer Pitcher of The Month award from him, but Johan is getting a Key from the City of New York, and SNY will cover it at 6:30 on Friday the 22nd.

G-Fafif Aug 06 2012 07:14 PM Re: NO-HAN.

Quiz through which you can win No-Han DVD at FAFIF. Give it a shot!