Master Index of Archived Threads


WARNING!! Thread Contents May be Hazardous to your MFeYeS!!

batmagadanleadoff May 26 2013 12:41 AM

batmagadanleadoff May 26 2013 12:47 AM Re: WARNING!! Thread Contents May be Hazardous to your MFeYe

Klapisch: Looking for some juicy story lines in the Subway Series Sunday May 26, 2013, 12:20 AM By BOB KLAPISCH RECORD COLUMNIST When the Mets' Matt Harvey faces the Yankees' Robinson Cano during the Subway Series, it will be a collision of power versus power, a matchup so riveting it’ll eclipse everything else this week. We’re all too wise, not to mention too weary, to be over-invested in another Subway Series. Been there, done that, so many times the only response to the schedule-maker who saddled us with four helpings of Mets-Yankees is: No Mas … please. With the exception of Matt Harvey’s start Tuesday night, prepare for a snapshot of two franchises sprinting in opposite directions — the American League’s second best pitching staff against the National League’s worst. The Yankees are in first place, already targeting the weekend showdown with the Red Sox. The Mets, on the other hand, are drunk with failure, their season already over before Memorial Day. Pity, too, because the metropolitan area needs two successful baseball teams. The Yankees’ largess requires a strong National League counterbalance; instead, Mets fans are living in the dark age of the Wilpons’ poverty. That means picking the bones of this once-compelling rivalry and hoping for better times in 2014. Here are five matchups to watch, with the caveat that nothing – nothing – comes close to Roger Clemens versus Mike Piazza anymore. Those were the days. Matt Harvey versus Robinson Cano This will be a collision of power versus power, a matchup so riveting it’ll eclipse everything else this week. At 95.1 mph, Harvey has the major leagues’ second most dominant fastball, just behind Stephen Strasburg’s 95.4. That’s why we can’t wait to see how Cano handles the heat; no one in the American League waits longer before committing to his swing. Keeping the hands back is Cano’s signature, especially when he’s locked in. As irrelevant as the Mets are, and as little threat as they pose to anyone (except maybe the Marlins) the Yankees will be fully committed to neutralizing Harvey. His reputation has spread as a power pitcher who has a four-pitch arsenal capable of exploiting each quadrant of the strike zone. Therein lies the danger for Cano if he’s gearing up solely for the fastball. He has no idea, yet, how devastating Harvey’s curveball is. Even more lethal is the 90-mph change-up that’s ruined almost every NL hitter this season. Somehow, though, we sense Cano will be ready for whatever Harvey’s got. Considering his swinging-strike percentage is only 6.6 percent, or 50 percent lower than the major league average … well, you get the point. It’s not easy to make Cano look bad. Stay tuned. Mariano Rivera versus David Wright We could’ve picked a mismatch such as Rivera facing Ike Davis, although that would’ve been inhumane. Even Rivera against the semi-formidable David Murphy would likely be a no-contest. No, it’s more fun to conjure images of Wright, the Mets’ best hitter, going up against the majors’ most inscrutable pitch, Rivera’s cutter. What gives this matchup texture is the history between the two. Although Wright has faced Rivera only seven times, he still hasn’t forgotten that 2006 walk-off hit on May 19, 2006 at Shea, giving the Mets a 7-6 victory. Talk about nostalgia: that was the year the Mets won 97 games and had every reason to believe they were the NL’s best team, not just New York’s. Wright’s blast over Johnny Damon’s head was a microcosm of what the Mets believed was a generational sea-change. The Bombers were in the final stages of the Joe Torre era, while the younger, hipper Mets were no longer afraid of the monolith in the Bronx. Wright told the New York Post his walk-off was, “a distinct honor ... [and] will definitely be a good story for my kids and grandkids one day.” He’d love to do that again. Ike Davis versus himself For all we know Davis could be long gone by the time the Yankees and Mets meet Monday night. If ownership has any compassion, it will recognize Davis’ current 2-for-44 slump as a cry for help. They’ll send him to the relative obscurity of Class-AAA and allow Wally Backman to rebuild the first baseman’s broken ego. With any luck, Davis will salvage enough of his career to make a trade to a smaller-market team possible. Right now, however, “he’s a broken man,” in the words of one talent evaluator. That, with a broken swing. If Davis has any chance of returning to the majors, he’ll have to economize his stroke, eliminate the unnecessary hand movement and rediscover the virtues of hitting to the opposite field. But Davis is locked into so many bad habits, and misidentifying pitches at such an alarming rate, he’s nothing short of lost. The Mets would be doing Davis a favor keeping him away from the Subway Series, especially in front of the fans at Citi who’ve lost patience with him. Joe Girardi versus Terry Collins It’s hard to believe the two managers are technically on equal footing: both Girardi and Collins are lame ducks, both hoping for a contract for 2014. It’s not hard to see which one is comfortable and which one is about to self-immolate. Girardi already should be in contention for manager of the year for the way he’s kept the Yankees in first place despite having 13 players on the disabled list. Collins, however, looks worse every day. His face, once taut and chiseled, now resembles a pillow. And who could blame him? In fact, you keep waiting for the explosion that’s bubbling just under the surface. Collins is too hot-wired to endure this much losing, and a bad week against the Yankees could ignite an already-combustible situation. Yankee Stadium versus Citi Field Of course it’ll be impossible to know how many Yankees fans will be in the ballpark Monday and Tuesday nights, just as there’s no way to gauge the cross-pollination in the Bronx on Wednesday and Thursday. Still, it’ll be interesting to see how loud or hostile the respective ballparks will be – or how well-attended. The Yankees’ gate is down 8 percent from 2012, although they’re still the American League’s second-best draw behind the Angels. The Mets are allowed to say their attendance is almost even from last year’s, but that’s because their accounting is based on ticket sales, not the number of people who actually show up. More and more, Citi Field feels like a ghost town, just as the franchise itself has been abandoned. According to the Daily News, the Mets’ ratings on SNY are down 22 percent from the same point in 2012. Interestingly, the Yankees are suffering without their stars. Despite averaging 37,000 fans per game, their draw on YES within the 18-54 age group is down by more than 50 percent, according to the News. http://www.northjersey.com/sports/Klapi ... eries.html

G-Fafif May 26 2013 01:50 AM Re: WARNING!! Thread Contents May be Hazardous to your MFeYe

Why must Klapisch suck so ever-loving hard? "David Murphy" may just be one of those things (is David Murphy ever identified as Daniel Murphy?), but what fucking makes him suck is the "irrelevant" trope. What the hell does that mean exactly? Irrelevant to those who don't care about the Mets to begin with? Those who are paid to write shitty columns and can't bear to find an original angle? The Mets are allowed to say their attendance is almost even from last year’s, but that’s because their accounting is based on ticket sales, not the number of people who actually show up. Hey, disphit: Everybody's attendance is calculated that way. It's BS, but it's everybody's BS, not a charming Wilpon defect. The Mets are going to honor Rivera before Tuesday's game. I hope it's by shoving Klapisch's head ever further up his Rivera's ass.

batmagadanleadoff May 26 2013 06:09 AM Re: WARNING!! Thread Contents May be Hazardous to your MFeYe

The Official Attendance Can Become Empty of Meaning By Ken Belson September 22, 2012 The Mets announced that the attendance at their game Thursday night against the Phillies was 20,010. Even a casual glance at the game on television, though, suggested that there were no more than a few thousand fans at Citi Field. Were the Mets fibbing? Technically, no, because teams in Major League Baseball and other sports leagues report the number of tickets sold, not the number of tickets used. The bulk of the unused tickets were held by fans with season-ticket plans, including partial season-ticket holders who as part of their package had to accept tickets to midweek games held at the beginning and end of the season when school is in session and the weather is chillier. Teams know how many fans attend their games on a given night, a process made easier by bar codes scanned at the turnstiles. But teams, the Mets included, rarely disclose those figures, which they consider proprietary. Estimating the number of fans attending a game is not easy. At any given time, some fans are shopping for merchandise, taking a bathroom break or waiting in line for food at concession stands. Because the concourse on the field level at Citi Field is accessible to everyone, some fans buy tickets for seats in the upper deck but never go there, and instead hang around the field level. Some fans in suites, clubs and restaurants are out of view. Until 1999, National League clubs reported attendance based on turnstile counts and the American League teams reported paid attendance. In 2000, all clubs started reporting the number of tickets sold because those figures were used to calculate revenue sharing between the clubs, according to Major League Baseball/ Through 76 home games this year, the Mets had sold 2,114,126 tickets, 4 percent fewer than during the same period last year, according to Baseball-Reference.com. With only five home games remaining, against the Miami Marlins and the Pittsburgh Pirates — traditionally weak draws — and a horrendous record at Citi Field, where the Mets have won 6 of their last 31 games, the Mets’ attendance is almost certain to decline for the third straight season. Leaguewide attendance is up about 2.5 percent this season, and the league is on pace to notch its fourth-highest attendance. http://bats.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/2 ... f-meaning/ _______________ At least the Mets can say that they aren't selling less tickets than last season. For whatever that's worth.

Ceetar May 26 2013 06:55 AM Re: WARNING!! Thread Contents May be Hazardous to your MFeYe

[url]http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/current_attendance.shtml handy tool for comparing to last year's attendance. Mets are down about 300 a game. Yankees are down 3000 a game. Marlins are down nearly 11000 a game. Phillies nearly 7000

Gwreck May 26 2013 07:14 AM Re: WARNING!! Thread Contents May be Hazardous to your MFeYe

Who's next to Jack Aker? And did I miss the Felix Heredia card?

Gwreck May 26 2013 07:36 AM Re: WARNING!! Thread Contents May be Hazardous to your MFeYe

Also, Benitez? And who's next to Dave Kingman?

batmagadanleadoff May 26 2013 11:05 AM Re: WARNING!! Thread Contents May be Hazardous to your MFeYe

Stan Jefferson Octavio Dotel MIA MFY's include Armando Benitez, Daryl Boston, Kevin Elster, Paul Gibson, Felix Heredia, Lance Johnson, Bob Ojeda, Jesse Orosco, Lenny Randle, Jeff Reardon, Roy Staiger and Frank Tanana.

Frayed Knot May 26 2013 12:22 PM Re: WARNING!! Thread Contents May be Hazardous to your MFeYe

Until 1999, National League clubs reported attendance based on turnstile counts and the American League teams reported paid attendance. In 2000, all clubs started reporting the number of tickets sold because those figures were used to calculate revenue sharing between the clubs, according to Major League Baseball Hey, disphit: Everybody's attendance is calculated that way. It's BS, but it's everybody's BS, not a charming Wilpon defect. Francesa has been on this bandwagon too, implying, often while barely keeping himself from outright stating, that the Mets are the only ones to do so and probably invented the whole scam.

Ashie62 May 26 2013 12:23 PM Re: WARNING!! Thread Contents May be Hazardous to your MFeYe

Why must Klapisch suck so ever-loving hard? "David Murphy" may just be one of those things (is David Murphy ever identified as Daniel Murphy?), but what fucking makes him suck is the "irrelevant" trope. What the hell does that mean exactly? Irrelevant to those who don't care about the Mets to begin with? Those who are paid to write shitty columns and can't bear to find an original angle? The Mets are allowed to say their attendance is almost even from last year’s, but that’s because their accounting is based on ticket sales, not the number of people who actually show up. Hey, disphit: Everybody's attendance is calculated that way. It's BS, but it's everybody's BS, not a charming Wilpon defect. The Mets are going to honor Rivera before Tuesday's game. I hope it's by shoving Klapisch's head ever further up his Rivera's ass. Easy Greg...we would both feel better if the Mets won a few of these series...

vtmet May 26 2013 01:23 PM Re: WARNING!! Thread Contents May be Hazardous to your MFeYe

so...the guy that runs Metsblog was a metrosexual Yankee in the 70/80's?

G-Fafif May 26 2013 05:59 PM Re: WARNING!! Thread Contents May be Hazardous to your MFeYe

Until 1999, National League clubs reported attendance based on turnstile counts and the American League teams reported paid attendance. In 2000, all clubs started reporting the number of tickets sold because those figures were used to calculate revenue sharing between the clubs, according to Major League Baseball/ That change was made in 1993, the year the woebegone Mets were drawing reasonable-sounding crowds of "17,000" or so in late September for midweek night games when there were clearly no more than a few thousand in the house.

batmagadanleadoff May 26 2013 06:13 PM Re: WARNING!! Thread Contents May be Hazardous to your MFeYe

Until 1999, National League clubs reported attendance based on turnstile counts and the American League teams reported paid attendance. In 2000, all clubs started reporting the number of tickets sold because those figures were used to calculate revenue sharing between the clubs, according to Major League Baseball/ That change was made in 1993, the year the woebegone Mets were drawing reasonable-sounding crowds of "17,000" or so in late September for midweek night games when there were clearly no more than a few thousand in the house. Right you are, sez the LA Times. Attendance figures that count tickets sold, not turnstile clicks, make it hard for fans to reconcile what they hear with the empty seats they see Series: First in a series of occasional stories as The Times examines attendance in sports. By Bill Shaikin, Times Staff Writer August 23, 2005 In the eighth inning of every home game at Dodger Stadium, the public address announcer invites fans to guess the attendance. On the scoreboard above right field, four choices are displayed, with fans asked to pick the correct one. The truly correct answer: none of the above. In twists of semantics and accounting, the world of professional sports does not necessarily define "attendance" as "the number of people who attended the event." That can leave fans hearing an attendance figure, staring at sections of empty seats and wondering how to reconcile what they hear with what they see. That also can leave sponsors wondering how many people their ballpark ads are reaching and leave teams calculating how many millions of dollars they lose when fans buy tickets but don't show up. On July 31, [2005] with the St. Louis Cardinals -- the team with the best record in the National League -- in town, the Dodgers announced a crowd of 44,543 on a day the stands appeared closer to half-empty at the 56,000-seat stadium. They also announced attendance of 47,877 for a game three days earlier against the Cincinnati Reds, but huge chunks of the right-field pavilion and the new luxury seats beyond third base were unoccupied, with blocks of empty seats sprinkled throughout each level of the stadium. The Angels announced sellouts for each game during the Aug. 5-7 series against the last-place Tampa Bay Devil Rays, but vacant seats were not difficult to spot. "When we say sold out, we are sold out," said Tim Mead, the Angels' vice president of communications. Under the rules of Major League Baseball, the Dodgers and Angels are telling the truth. National League teams announced an actual turnstile count through 1992, MLB spokesman Rich Levin said. But the National League and American League have since consolidated business operations, and Major League Baseball defines attendance as "tickets sold," not "tickets used." "It's because of revenue sharing," Levin said. "That's what we use in our official count." (Teams contribute 34% of the revenue they generate, including most ticket and concession revenue, into a pool to be redistributed among teams that generate the fewest dollars.) The Times no longer routinely includes attendance in sports stories, because of the discrepancies between actual and announced attendance. "In effect, we're intentionally presenting inaccurate information while attributing it to the home team," Sports Editor Bill Dwyre wrote in a memo announcing the change. The NBA and NHL announce the number of tickets distributed, adding complimentary tickets -- for players' families, league officials, sponsors and such -- to the number of tickets sold. The NFL traditionally has permitted a team to announce whatever attendance figures it chose, including no-shows. However, the league distributed a memo this month encouraging teams to limit their announcement to tickets sold. "When no-shows become a significant factor," the memo read, "clubs should respond factually to inquiries from the media." Major League Baseball has issued no such directive to its teams. The Dodgers declined to say how many tickets were used -- or how many unused -- for that late July homestand. They also declined to provide a no-show figure for this season, or for last season. The Angels' no-show rate last season -- tickets sold but not used -- was 19%, Mead said. The three weekend games last month against the New York Yankees -- the most reliable drawing card in baseball -- had no-show rates of 10%, 9% and 14%, he said. Last year's playoff series against the Boston Red Sox had a no-show rate of 4%, Mead said. This year's highest no-show rate was 40%, for an April 19 game against the Seattle Mariners, Mead said. The Angels announced attendance of 38,667 that day, meaning the actual attendance was close to 23,000. That figure was not particularly troubling, Mead said, because the game took place on a Tuesday afternoon in April, when school and work commitments can make it difficult for season-ticket holders to use, sell or give away their seats. The Dodgers' no-show rate this season is running about even with last season, Chief Operating Officer Marty Greenspun said. The large number of empty seats during the games against St. Louis and Cincinnati, he said, simply reflected the reality of playing in the afternoon during a heat wave. "If they would have been night games, the no-show factor would have been a lot less," he said. "It's not a function of anything but the weather. It was 100 degrees out." The average major league no-show rate hovers between 18% and 20%, an executive from another National League team said. And, in order to add 1,600 field-level luxury seats this season and still comply with a city permit that limits capacity to 56,000, the Dodgers no longer sell 1,600 reserved-level seats. If the Dodgers' no-show rate for the July 28 weekday game against Cincinnati matched the highest rate of the Angels, the Dodgers' actual attendance would have been 28,726 -- a half-empty stadium. The local teams are on pace to set franchise records in tickets sold, the Dodgers at 3.7 million and the Angels at 3.4 million. The teams each won division championships last season and recorded an increase in season-ticket sales this season -- the Angels to a record 28,400 and the Dodgers to 23,000. The greater the number of season tickets sold, the greater the number of no-shows, Mead and Greenspun said. In an effort to minimize no-shows, the Dodgers and Angels now allow season-ticket holders to resell seats on the team website. The teams also use bar codes to scan tickets, and Greenspun said the Dodgers contact customers who use season seats infrequently and offer incentives to attend. With good reason, said David Carter, a Los Angeles sports business consultant. When fans are no-shows, the team makes money on the sale of the ticket but loses the chance to make more money at the concession and souvenir stands. "They're not eating any hot dogs or guzzling the $8 beers," Carter said. Fans spend an average of $16 on food, drinks, merchandise and parking, Mead said. That 40% no-show game in April, then, translated to a loss of about $250,000 in Angel Stadium sales. The Angels lost roughly $10 million in stadium sales last season, based on the 19% no-show rate and 3.38 million tickets sold. (The Dodgers would have lost slightly more, based on that rate. That figure represents gross revenue, before subtracting salaries, costs and revenue-sharing contributions.) The Dodgers and Angels also make millions each year by selling advertising, including signs along the outfield wall, space on promotional giveaways such as caps and T-shirts, and commercial time on stadium video boards. The teams pitch potential advertisers on the ability to reach more than 3 million fans, based on announced attendance. Robert Alvarado, the Angels' director of marketing, said some sponsors pay the team an incentive bonus if attendance exceeds a specified level. "We have one or two sponsors who really inquire about our attendance numbers, even though they're published every day in the paper," he said. But because of the no-show factor, the figures published in box scores do not reflect how many people actually see a stadium advertisement. Still, Alvarado said, he has not received a call from sponsors alarmed after seeing a sizable block of empty seats on television and curious about exactly how many people have seen their ads. "We're not really selling every person that comes through the gates," Alvarado said. "We're pitching the average attendance. We're pitching a three-year run of over 3 million in attendance and being in the top five in baseball. "They're not really looking at a specific game." In addition, he said, many sponsors buy packages that include ads at the ballpark but also on schedules, posters, promotional giveaways and radio and television broadcasts, so the target audience is not limited to fans in attendance. Still, sponsors need to be aware the attendance they pay for might not be the attendance they get, said Chris Smith, chief strategy officer at the Marketing Arm, a Dallas-based company that matches advertisers with sports and entertainment properties. "It's not an baseball-only problem," Smith said. "Most sponsors go off what the team gives them. When we evaluate sponsorships for our clients, we take into account a slippage rate for attendance." The no-show issue could become ominous for the Dodgers, if increasing numbers of empty seats over the last two months of a poor season foretell a winter in which fans opt not to renew season tickets and advertisers opt not to renew sponsorships. The Dodgers are not overly concerned, Greenspun said. Fan loyalty tells a better story, he said, than a few empty sections of Dodger Stadium on any given day. "We've got a long-term history of having more years with 3 million fans than any other team," he said. "Historically, we've got the best fan base in the country." http://www.latimes.com/la-sp-attendance ... full.story

batmagadanleadoff May 26 2013 06:19 PM Re: WARNING!! Thread Contents May be Hazardous to your MFeYe

I might be missing something here, but I don't see why the revenue sharing system requires MLB teams to equate attendance with tickets sold. It's all so Orwellian. What? Teams can't properly chip in a third of game revenue into the pool if they release the tickets used figures? It's an excuse, that's all it seems to be.

G-Fafif May 26 2013 06:27 PM Re: WARNING!! Thread Contents May be Hazardous to your MFeYe

batmagadanleadoff wrote: I might be missing something here, but I don't see why the revenue sharing system requires MLB teams to equate attendance with tickets sold. It's all so Orwellian. What? Teams can't properly chip in a third of game revenue into the pool if they release the tickets used figures? It's an excuse, that's all it seems to be. Yeah, now that you mention it, those would seem to be mutually exclusive issues.

Swan Swan H May 26 2013 06:39 PM Re: WARNING!! Thread Contents May be Hazardous to your MFeYe

I disagree. Tickets sold equals ticket revenue, not tickets used. If I sell 25,000 tickets at $40 each I have received $1 million, whether 25,000 or 2,500 people show up, and that $1 million is the number that should get used for revenue sharing. Further, if I sell every ticket for a game, it is a sellout. No more tickets are available to be sold. If people choose not to show up there's nothing I can do about it, and no way to reclaim those tickets to be sold from my box office. The aftermarket is another issue, of course.

batmagadanleadoff May 26 2013 06:43 PM Re: WARNING!! Thread Contents May be Hazardous to your MFeYe

Swan Swan H wrote: I disagree. Tickets sold equals ticket revenue, not tickets used. If I sell 25,000 tickets at $40 each I have received $1 million, whether 25,000 or 2,500 people show up, and that $1 million is the number that should get used for revenue sharing. Further, if I sell every ticket for a game, it is a sellout. No more tickets are available to be sold. If people choose not to show up there's nothing I can do about it, and no way to reclaim those tickets to be sold from my box office. The aftermarket is another issue, of course. I understand everything you write, except your conclusion. Nothing that you write prevents teams from releasing the true attendance figures (tickets used).

Swan Swan H May 26 2013 06:52 PM Re: WARNING!! Thread Contents May be Hazardous to your MFeYe

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Swan Swan H wrote: I disagree. Tickets sold equals ticket revenue, not tickets used. If I sell 25,000 tickets at $40 each I have received $1 million, whether 25,000 or 2,500 people show up, and that $1 million is the number that should get used for revenue sharing. Further, if I sell every ticket for a game, it is a sellout. No more tickets are available to be sold. If people choose not to show up there's nothing I can do about it, and no way to reclaim those tickets to be sold from my box office. The aftermarket is another issue, of course. I understand everything you write, except your conclusion. Nothing that you write prevents teams from releasing the true attendance figures (tickets used). My sense is that the since the AL always did it that way, when the division between the leagues began to crumble it was the easy way out to report the higher number across the board. Teams reporting both paid and turnstile attendance would definitely make sense, but I think the fans deserve to know how many tickets are sold, as it speaks to the revenue the team is receiving and should be expected to turn back into building the team.

Frayed Knot May 26 2013 07:04 PM Re: WARNING!! Thread Contents May be Hazardous to your MFeYe

Swan Swan H wrote: My sense is that the since the AL always did it that way, when the division between the leagues began to crumble it was the easy way out to report the higher number across the board. Yes, the AL long reported tickets sold while the NL gave the asses-in-seats number. Actually I remember the Murph/Ralph/Lindsey crew reporting BOTH paid and actual. And, yes, it was the gradual merging of the leagues which prompted the change to one system.

Edgy MD May 27 2013 07:02 AM Re: WARNING!! Thread Contents May be Hazardous to your MFeYe

Yes, they did. And there's nothing stopping them from reporting both numbers. But there's nothing motivating them either. Actually, I imagine there's nothing but the blessed weight of tradition motivating them to report either number. Back to the reason for this thread, there's a strange retroactive bitterness seeing Tidrow in a Yankee home uniform at Shea Stadium. Are there any other such unwelcome guests making themselves at home on those cards? Billy Cowan seems to be at Shea, but that can't be right.

Edgy MD May 27 2013 07:05 AM Re: WARNING!! Thread Contents May be Hazardous to your MFeYe

I guess it's a photo from earlier years for Cowan with handpainted pinstripes.

G-Fafif May 27 2013 09:13 AM Re: WARNING!! Thread Contents May be Hazardous to your MFeYe

Nothing feels more propagandistic than reporting that a baseball game was played in front of a crowd (or "an announced crowd") of 23,149 when there are clearly no more than half that figure in the park, no matter how many are off acquiring a refreshment or using the facilities. The bottom line may be what matters in reporting to the league office (singular) but part of the historical record is how many actually bore witness to a given game. Please add turnstile count to the list of things wished brought back.

Swan Swan H May 27 2013 09:37 AM Re: WARNING!! Thread Contents May be Hazardous to your MFeYe

G-Fafif wrote: Please add turnstile count to the list of things wished brought back. Go right ahead. I'm saving my wishes for world peace, the return of Suzy-Qs to my supermarket, and a 2014 Anthony Recker swimsuit calendar.

batmagadanleadoff May 27 2013 10:11 AM Re: WARNING!! Thread Contents May be Hazardous to your MFeYe

I guess it's a photo from earlier years for Cowan with handpainted pinstripes. The pinstripes Cowan wears on his '69 Topps card are Metly. His photo wasn't retouched. Topps used the generic capless headshot, supposedly stripped of enough logo detail to suggest any team. After a certain point in the production process, Topps would not be bothered with obtaining a photo of the player in his new team's uni. Cowan hadn't been a Met since the Summer of '65, BTW. Topps probbaly chose the Met capless shot for the '69 card because the Mets were the last team Cowan played for that wore pinstripes. Ironically, Topps never produced a Met card for Cowan. Cowan appears on his '65 card -his only Met season - as a Cub. Cowan was not in the '66 Topps set, no longer a Met by then. Back to the reason for this thread, there's a strange retroactive bitterness seeing Tidrow in a Yankee home uniform at Shea Stadium. Are there any other such unwelcome guests making themselves at home on those cards? You missed Maddox '75. More MFY's at Shea. How humbling it must have been. If historical trends continue, the MFY's will someday, play a season at Citi Field: they've played entire seasons in every other Mets stadium.

batmagadanleadoff May 27 2013 10:43 AM Re: WARNING!! Thread Contents May be Hazardous to your MFeYe

Interesting snippet from the LA TImes article posted above on attendance figures. I missed it the first time around. (Skim mode) The [LA] Times no longer routinely includes attendance in sports stories, because of the discrepancies between actual and announced attendance. "In effect, we're intentionally presenting inaccurate information while attributing it to the home team," Sports Editor Bill Dwyre wrote in a memo announcing the change.

Edgy MD May 27 2013 12:01 PM Re: WARNING!! Thread Contents May be Hazardous to your MFeYe

Cowan seems to have left his chin bulbs in Chicago, along with his last modestly productive National League season.