THE CRANE POOL FORUM thecranepool.net (.com)


Forum Home

Master Index of Archived Threads


Met Fans Today

Zvon
Aug 22 2005 02:43 PM

I dont make it to Shea as much as I used to. Havent been to Shea at all this year.
Before the BB strike in the early 90s, Id still make half a dozen games even though I lived hundreds of miles away.
When I was growing up in NYC, Id see at least one a weekend, many times 2, and easily ended up going to around 30 games a season thru the 70s.
I was fortunate enough to be able to attend the playoffs in '73 and '88.

But the way I remember Met fans as a whole in no way seems to compare with what I read about the fans who attend games these days.
Met fans (when I was a regular game goer) were a much more compassionate lot. Maybe because we lost more than we won then, for the most part. Then came the teams of the later 80s, and we ate it up. It was a real kool time for Met fans. We began to win more than we lost.

But it wasnt totally about winning. It was more about just being there and takin what they gave ya. Nobody liked to lose, but we could accept it. Im know at times we booed Met players, but even then we did it with a smile and it would all be forgotten before the game was even over. Because these were the Mets. And we supported our team come rain or shine, win or loss, great play or embarrassing error. Awsum or horrendous outing. Booming homer or stinkin wiff.

Today I read how Met fans 'turned' on the team during the bullpen meltdown the other night to the point of hurling racist remarks at Met players from the stands.
This is a quote from The Daily News:"...Hielman was serenaded with chants about Hitler, Danny Graves had his Veitnamese heritage ridiculed and Dae-Sung Koo was mocked viciously."

Who are these asshole fans? Why should they even contemplate going there in regards to their own team? That kinda shit, if it has to be used at all, should be reserved for the opposition.

I know in todays game, with all the $$$ flowin into a team, certain results are expected. And Im not knocking stuff like 'the boo birds' because a team should hear boos from their own crowd when its appropriete. The voice of the fan can and should be tuff to deal with when a team underachieves. (in my view, this team has been more so overachieving, since at seasons start I thought we would probly linger around .500 most of the summer and and fall off after the break).

And you have to take what they give you. And stick with your team.

Remember the game when Anderson hit the inside the park homer to tie, and Floyd clobbered one in extra frames to win it? I was jumpin around the room, dancin for joy. What a game. And some teams dont even give their fans even one game like that all season.

But these fans I read about......
are these the Met fans of today?
Is this how they support their team?
By tryin to bring them lower at a point when they certainly must be feeling low.
Maybe these people just go to games to redicule players, and not to provide the positive aspects of what a home crowd supposed to provide a team.
Now the Mets players are hitting the road, and maybe they are glad to be getting away from their own playing field. Maybe they wonder why should they give it all they have left when they have to be subjugated to such bullshit at the hands of thier own contingent.
Its dismaying and embarrassing to read how people who attend Met games these days seem to have have no heart whatsoever.
No compassion. They dont create a support structure that the team they choose to follow, wether win or lose, deserves.

Is this the price of todays spiraling saleries and having a team that contends, or is expected to contend on a regular basis?

Does a team have to win it all and perform flawlessly to gaiin the love and respect of todays fans??

It makes me wonder what some of these fans are in it for...........

Maybe its a good thing I havent been to Shea at all this year.
I hate getting into fights and there may be some attendees in need of an ass kickin.

Elster88
Aug 22 2005 02:47 PM

The fans have never changed. There were assholes back then, there are assholes now.

In '86, there were a bunch of fans who are now wearing Yankee caps. Some of those bandwagoners were assholes too. These were the people who made Doug Sisk's life a living hell.

As the Mets continue to improve there will be more bandwagoners. Some of them will be assholes.

I seriously doubt there is a major difference between now and then. There were racist remarks back then too, it's just the 24/7 media coverage didn't exist, so you didn't notice it.

"Which days are the halcyon(sp?) days of my youth? Is Saturday one?"
"They are rewarded retroactively after you grow up."
"I can't tell until then??"
"Halcyonity (sp?) is relative."
"I'll go ask Mom."

EDIT: Also, there will always be people who think they know more than the actually managers, coaches, and front offices. These are the people who call in to radio talk-shows and post under the handle Elster88. The difference is that the radio callers will boo and curse because they are assholes, whereas Elster88 is a good dude who knows deep down that he lacks the knowledge to be a baseball professional.

ScarletKnight41
Aug 22 2005 02:57 PM

Keep in mind that it's the assholes who make the news.

For the most part, I don't think the fans are all that different from the past. If anything, I think that Shea is a nicer place than it was in the early 80's.

Hey Werewolf - do you ever go to Philly to see the Mets?

Johnny Dickshot
Aug 22 2005 02:58 PM

Not denying there weren't buttheads back in the day, but I think it has changed some.

1) They increasingly take cues from media buttwipes like Francessa, Russo, Heyman, etc who are compelled to interpret struggles as character flaws.

2) The Mets feel like they can't be successful unless they sell millions of tickets, and they feel they can't sell millions of tickets unless they overpromise results.

3) The financial gap between us regular people and entertainers has become impossibly wide.

4) Booing draws attention, and attention is the new cocaine.

Frayed Knot
Aug 22 2005 03:00 PM

Probably because the two biggest success stories over the last decade have been the cross-town rivals and the cross-division rivals, a significant pct of Met fans have acquired an inferiority complex and are using it to set new records for whining and crying about it. They're basically an angry lot who are looking for things to boo about so the leap from a guy striking out to "get him outta here", or the jump from 'I disagree with that pitching change" to "fire the manager NOW!!!!" isn't too far for many of them.

I've said this before, but my definition of a Met fan is one who loves the team; he just hates the stadium, the owners, the GM, the manager, the coaches, and each and every one of the players.

ScarletKnight41
Aug 22 2005 03:06 PM

Frayed Knot wrote:

I've said this before, but my definition of a Met fan is one who loves the team; he just hates the stadium, the owners, the GM, the manager, the coaches, and each and every one of the players.


You just described my late grandfather to a T!

Bret Sabermetric
Aug 22 2005 04:05 PM

Johnny Dickshot wrote:
2) The Mets feel like they can't be successful unless they sell millions of tickets, and they feel they can't sell millions of tickets unless they overpromise results.
.


Right on, Johnny D. This is the root of the tremendous con-job I think they have pulled off, and I'm glad to see you recognizing it. Though not in the legal sense, I feel this is fraudulent in nature, and has soured me severely on the Mets.

KC
Aug 22 2005 04:09 PM

You mean Ambler was right six years ago? Poor poor Johnny Lunchbucket
being duped out of his hard earned dough.

Everything seems so clear to me now, like I took some of that Ginkoba.

(one edit)

Nymr83
Aug 22 2005 04:17 PM

]This is a quote from The Daily News:"...Hielman was serenaded with chants about Hitler, Danny Graves had his Veitnamese heritage ridiculed and Dae-Sung Koo was mocked viciously."

Who are these asshole fans? Why should they even contemplate going there in regards to their own team? That kinda shit, if it has to be used at all, should be reserved for the opposition.


there is no need for that bullshit, ever. if you feel the need to let the bad players (or the opposition) know how you feel don't make it personal. "boooooo" and "you suck" are quite sufficient. there is no need to insult any aspect of a player other than his baseball abilities.

SwitchHitter
Aug 22 2005 04:23 PM

...or lack thereof. Really, it should be about the game.

Bret Sabermetric
Aug 22 2005 05:10 PM

KC wrote:
You mean Ambler was right six years ago?



Ambler may have been premature (or maybe not) but Johnny D. was on the money this afternoon.

KC
Aug 22 2005 05:23 PM

Dickshot, Sabermetric ... banned one year ... no soup for you.

(anti-Mets rhetoric will not be tolerated)

Johnny Dickshot
Aug 22 2005 05:36 PM

]Right on, Johnny D. This is the root of the tremendous con-job I think they have pulled off, and I'm glad to see you recognizing it. Though not in the legal sense, I feel this is fraudulent in nature, and has soured me severely on the Mets.


Well, I also think fans ought to better manage their own expectations, so it's only a ripoff if you allow it to be.

I think fans frequently interpret stuff at face value and don't think for themselves so they'll have an outlet to blame for their disappointments.

mlbaseballtalk
Aug 22 2005 05:37 PM

I think there is also a sentiment among the current Shea crowd to make it Bronx Lite instead of keeping old Shea/Mets traditions.

The "Lets Go Mets WHOO!" I swear must have started to drown out the "EES!" part of "LETS GO YANKEES" chants that MFY fans chant during Subway Series games at Shea. I mean when has there EVER been another syallble in "LETS GO METS" Even when the song added the second GO at the end it never caught on. And come to think if it, it comes off as kind of lame, and sometimes sounds like a question (or a Steve Austin WWE promo, in fact, maybe they should be chanting WHAT!? at the end) "LETS GO METS! WHO?!"

Also in an article earlier this summer it sounds like the Pepsi Pavillion tried doing a "Role Call" ala what the Bleacher Creatures do at Yankee Stadium. Like fans are trying too hard to be like "big brother"

I really think you can trace the change in Shea's dezines to the start of Interleague Play, other than George Steinbrenner's need to beat the Mets in the headlines and in the Mayors Trophy games it did seem like the two teams were seperate and neither truly wanted to be like the other.

It was this way with the Dodgers, Giants and the first 35 some years of the Mets existence where the teams had their own identity.

I kind of agree with media causing a self fullfilling prophecy where during the Torre run the media has acted like the gulf between the two teams has never been wider ever (even during the 2000 World Series run) to the point where according to some in the media (mostly the pro-Yankee guys/gals and eventually Met guys like Don LaGreca of WFAN and 1050 ESPN Radio) the Mets would never "own" the town the way they once did doing things their way, and made it seem that the Mets never were able to stand on their own ever.

Therefore fans start mimicking Yankee fans, (and the media as well) start acting like "Well if we are never going to catch up and pass big brother, lets act like them and maybe it can be done that way" and start wanting what the Yankees have (the drive to get "Shea-Rod" and the complete turn against the Mets after they don't tender ARod an offer) start coming up with conspiracy theories about why Wilpon doesn't want to compete eyeball-to-eyeball with Steinbrenner (you hear it all the time that the Mets share the same revenue streams even though the Mets never struck an deal like the MFY did with Addias and MSG which is what built the current run just as much as Stick Michaels and Buck Showalter) and pretty much act like the Jan Bradys of the New York City sports scene

But thats my .02 on it

Steve

Bret Sabermetric
Aug 22 2005 05:55 PM

Johnny Dickshot wrote:
]Right on, Johnny D. This is the root of the tremendous con-job I think they have pulled off, and I'm glad to see you recognizing it. Though not in the legal sense, I feel this is fraudulent in nature, and has soured me severely on the Mets.


Well, I also think fans ought to better manage their own expectations, so it's only a ripoff if you allow it to be.

I think fans frequently interpret stuff at face value and don't think for themselves so they'll have an outlet to blame for their disappointments.


If it were merely rhetorical fraud, I'd agree. Caveat emptor to the self-serving rah-rah b.s. of Art Howe's "We battled," of Minaya's "We plan to compete this season," etc.

It's the policy b.s. I object to, and label fraudulent. Getting Mienkiewicz instead of just playing Anderson or Phillips at IB, trading Phillips (as if Ishii would have made a big difference for a few months), hanging on to Cameron this season (when he could have been swapped for parts and replaced with Diaz easily)--these are the acts of a genuine contender, which I think they know full well they're not. All these moves and more are just money pissed down a rat hole, blocking both younger players (who may or may not develop in '06 or '07) and expending funds better spent when the roster thins out and they know where to spend it.

Now they're positioned again to plead poverty when facing a top FA ("Hey, we gave you Mienkiewicz at top dollar--didn't work out but we tried") and delay building a truly good team for another couple of years. Fraud, I say, and most Met fans sadly bought into it.

KC--this is exactly the sort of thread that promises to elicit some entirely unnecessary comments on my right to spout such garbage, or to question my standing, as a non-Mets fan, to opine such here. No big deal, but it happens, and it's a waste of time and energy, and I deplore it. if you disagree, fine, Disagree with what I'm saying, but please don't get into a diversionary side discussion of my supposed disloyalty. Thanks.

KC
Aug 22 2005 06:18 PM

>>>but please don't get into a diversionary side discussion<<<

That's funny.

Elster88
Aug 22 2005 07:04 PM

]Caveat emptor to the self-serving rah-rah b.s. of Art Howe's "We battled," of Minaya's "We plan to compete this season," etc.


I didn't believe it in the beginning of the season, and I still maintain that they aren't making the playoffs, but I'm pretty sure Minaya has been proven right.

Johnny Dickshot
Aug 22 2005 07:11 PM

]If it were merely rhetorical fraud, I'd agree. Caveat emptor to the self-serving rah-rah b.s. of Art Howe's "We battled," of Minaya's "We plan to compete this season," etc.


That's the level I think a lot of fans are content to hold them to. Really I was referring to the whole marketing of THIS YEAR IN NEXT YEAR which was unreasonable not due to the talent, necessarily -- just that it stamps unrealistic expectations -- on almost any baseball team.


]It's the policy b.s. I object to, and label fraudulent. Getting Mienkiewicz instead of just playing Anderson or Phillips at IB, trading Phillips (as if Ishii would have made a big difference for a few months), hanging on to Cameron this season (when he could have been swapped for parts and replaced with Diaz easily)--these are the acts of a genuine contender, which I think they know full well they're not. All these moves and more are just money pissed down a rat hole, blocking both younger players (who may or may not develop in '06 or '07) and expending funds better spent when the roster thins out and they know where to spend it.


I'm not going to go into this point by point but I think a lot of this debateable and can change depending on one's perspective. I also don't think what you described is especially unique to the Mets: All teams make stretches, take certain gambles, and have concerns to satisfy that might not be in every fans' best interest. Nothing happens in a vacuum.


]Now they're positioned again to plead poverty when facing a top FA ("Hey, we gave you Mienkiewicz at top dollar--didn't work out but we tried") and delay building a truly good team for another couple of years. Fraud, I say, and most Met fans sadly bought into it.


I definitely don't think this will happen.

Bret Sabermetric
Aug 22 2005 07:27 PM

Johnny Dickshot wrote: I'm not going to go into this point by point


Thank you. We've been around this bush too many times, and my typing fingers get tired.

Johnny Dickshot wrote: I also don't think what you described is especially unique to the Mets

Of course not. There are about 10 to 12 teams per year that can genuinely suport a policy of being legitamate contenders, and stocking their teams this way. There are another 6 to 8 teams that don't even pretend to be contenders (again, I'm talking team policies, not rhetoric.) The Mets, while far from unique, fall into the middle category: that of illegitimate contenders who waste their fans' energy and money by trying to appear like contenders while knowing that, if they somehow stumble into the playoffs, they don't have a prayer of winning even a single series.

Johnny Dickshot
Aug 22 2005 07:31 PM

If a team makes the playoffs they deserve to be there.

Anything can happen in a 5 game series.

Zvon
Aug 22 2005 08:03 PM

ScarletKnight41 wrote:


Hey Werewolf - do you ever go to Philly to see the Mets?


Yes.
Many,many,many times since I moved down here.

Rockin' Doc
Aug 22 2005 08:08 PM
Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Aug 22 2005 08:36 PM

The bottom of the Mets line up goes quietly in the top of the second.

Upon edit: Damn, this was supposed to be in the IGT. I hate west coast road trips.

Zvon
Aug 22 2005 08:15 PM

interesting responses and I thank u all.

Some I agree with.
Some have enlightened me.

Ill have more to say about this in due time.

metirish
Aug 22 2005 08:49 PM

Good thread Zvon, Mets attendence is up 25% this season, apparently quite a few wankers are now going to games, the abuse Heilman, Koo and Graves had to endure is sickening,no call for that shit.

Zvon
Aug 22 2005 11:01 PM

]3) The financial gap between us regular people and entertainers has become impossibly wide.


this I agree with and i believe is a factor. Fans think they should be able to act this way as a right of cost of admission. And also have a bitter attitude about the state of the game today.

]The fans have never changed. There were assholes back then, there are assholes now.


This I dont totally agree with. Asshole fans were a different type of asshole. It has changed.


]As the Mets continue to improve there will be more bandwagoners. Some of them will be assholes.

I seriously doubt there is a major difference between now and then. There were racist remarks back then too, it's just the 24/7 media coverage didn't exist, so you didn't notice it.


I agree with this. In the late 80s I saw alot of bandwagoneers, and it bugged the hell out of me. They also seemed to be assholes by their very natures.
I dont remember things getting racial to a serious extent. I mean, with a guy like Koo, sure, ya make fun of his name. "Koo Koo, Koo Koo". But do you call him a suckass chink? I think not. Why should Graves Vietnamese backround be any fuel for fodder. It has nothing to do with anything.

]fans start mimicking Yankee fans, (and the media as well) start acting like "Well if we are never going to catch up and pass big brother, lets act like them and maybe it can be done that way" and start wanting what the Yankees have


if this is the case, then its sad. Met fans should have their own identity and not even be concerned with the Skanks aside from the times they play em. The 'keepin up with the Jones" mentality simpy should not apply here. The yanks have time on there side, and always will. You cant deny what they have done championshipwise over the last hundred years.But when you look at baseball history, for the relatively short time the Mets have played the game they have a rich history, with afew of the top moments in baseball this whole past century. growin up my best buddy was a yankee fan. It was apples and oranges. Course, the Yanks were going thru some lean yrs then and this was before their re-emergence. but there wasnt this animosity between Met and Yankee fans then, and there shouldnt be today. You either a NL fan or an AL fan, no big whoop.
To say it started when interleague started is interesting, but i dont buy it.
I do buy that this attitude is media fueled and only the weak fall for it.

]this is exactly the sort of thread that promises to elicit some entirely unnecessary comments on my right to spout such garbage, or to question my standing, as a non-Mets fan, to opine such here.


Bret, you can puke out whatever you want whenever you type, but I dont understand why a non-met fan would spend his fingertypin time hangin out with met fans at a met message board.
But the choice is yours, and you choose to do it, so get used to being the moving target that you paint yourself out to be.


Ill respond more to individual statements here thru-out the week.

Nymr83
Aug 22 2005 11:13 PM

Johnny Dickshot wrote:
If a team makes the playoffs they deserve to be there.

Anything can happen in a 5 game series.



very true. and this isn't the NBA... "unworthy" teams very rarely make the playoffs.

Bret Sabermetric
Aug 23 2005 03:01 AM

Johnny Dickshot wrote:
If a team makes the playoffs they deserve to be there.


You should get this embroidered on a pillow or something. I won't quibble with you about "deserve" but most years there are legitimate playoff teams (sometimes more than four) and illegitmate ones (sometimes even division winners are bastards). Historically, the playoffs put up a pretty consistent bar sinister.

"Anything can happen in a five game playoff"? Sure. Monkeys could fly out of Kaz Ishii's butt in a five-game playoff. Mike Piazza could nail Jim Edmonds five straight times at second base in a five-game playoff (n a non-sexual sense of "nail"). Hell, Piazza could nail Edmonds five straight times at second base in a five-game playoff in a sexual sense of "nail," and wouldn't THAT get a huge round of applause.

But that's the same obnoxious logic that decrees that the Colorado Rockies are 0-0 on opening day and so are exactly as good as the Red Sox on that day, with the same exact chance of winning the World Series. It's technically true, but no one but the most deeply deluded actually believes it. If you want to hang your hat on "Anything can happen..." I can't stop you but to me it's more of a symptom than a cure for your disease.

Johnny Dickshot
Aug 23 2005 05:52 AM

I don't wanna hang my hat on anything. I want to enjoy the season for what it brings and hope it's good enough this year.

That is not a sickness nor is it obnoxious: I consider myself pretty familiar with this team's warts, I understand what they're up against (so-called 'legitimate' contenders), and I know why management has an interest in not highlighting their shortcomings as the year proceeds. One has manage their expectations.

I think this idea that a team that's not a 'legitimate' contender isn't worth getting behind itself has a gigantic hole in that the odds are against them too: only not as steeply. I don't think there has to be a point on the disappointment scale where it's OK to tolerate risk and a place that's not when both are below 50%. That's f'n baseball!

Bret Sabermetric
Aug 23 2005 06:03 AM

Johnny Dickshot wrote:
I don't think there has to be a point on the disappointment scale where it's OK to tolerate risk and a place that's not when both are below 50%. That's f'n baseball!


Agreed. I don't there "has to be" an identical point for everyone. For you, there has to be a 10% chance of making the playoffs (arbitrary number)--below 10% you think it's delusional to hold out more than mathematical possibilties unsupported by f'in baseball. For me, that number's much higher--say, 30 or 40 or 50 %. Doesn't make you wrong, doesn't make me wrong--just different styles.

I do think that if you dressed up a bunch of rhesus monkeys in Mets uniforms, though, there would still be some CPFers who would cheer them on, and spiel the same "Anything can happen" stuff you're spieling to me, and you would look down on them as self-deluding fools.

Willets Point
Aug 23 2005 06:09 AM

Rhesus monkeys have good arms, we could use one in the outfield.

Johnny Dickshot
Aug 23 2005 06:09 AM

]I do think that if you dressed up a bunch of rhesus monkeys in Mets uniforms, though, there would still be some CPFers who would cheer them on, and spiel the same "Anything can happen" stuff you're spieling to me, and you would look down on them as self-deluding fools.


Until that happens, I'll manage my expectations with the human beings wearing the jerseys today.

(BP says the Mets have a 17.5% chance to make the playoffs as of this morning).

Bret Sabermetric
Aug 23 2005 06:37 AM

Johnny Dickshot wrote:
(BP says the Mets have a 17.5% chance to make the playoffs as of this morning).


That seems fair to me. I would have thought four months ago that the Mets would be much further out of the Wild Card than they are today. Notthat I expected them, with their talent base, to be playing much worse, but I am surprised that someone--Philly, Florida, Houston--hasn't played about ten games better than they are playing and put a few nails in their coffin.

Part of my position has to do with the Mets' resources. Some teams simply can't afford to put a better team on the field than they have--not so the Mets. The Mets didn't want to sign the Delgado, the Sexton, the other slugging 1B guy they so desperately (and now so obviously) need. Instead, they went for demographics--"Hmmm, we could draw more Japanese fans if we signed a great Japanese player--let's sign this bozo for a zillion bucks and hype him to death and hope we get real lucky" isn't a policy I approve of. Likewise the other Kaz, whom I suspect was another attempt to appeal to demographics rather than f'in baseball. Also the whole Latin marketing, which has worked out better on the field but which I still find disgusting.

First you get a good f'in baseball team, and THEN you market it, IMO. These guys have it ass-backwards. Scout well, spend smart (and spend plenty if you've got it), know your minor league players well enough to know who can play fill-in roles for you on the cheap (to make up for your superstar FA signings), play guys in proportion to their talent not their contracts or their hype, and you'll contend. The Mets have done very little to warrant being contenders, and they could have done a lot.

Elster88
Aug 23 2005 06:47 AM

I thought they made the same offer to Delgado that Florida did.

Elster88
Aug 23 2005 06:48 AM

]This I dont totally agree with. Asshole fans were a different type of asshole. It has changed.


This seems like a silly statement to me.

Benjamin Grimm
Aug 23 2005 06:57 AM

Elster88 wrote:
I thought they made the same offer to Delgado that Florida did.


They pretty much did. It's not that the Mets didn't want to sign Delgado, it's that Delgado didn't seem to like the Mets. Something about Omar and Fred's approach rubbed Delgado the wrong way.

I do wish there was a better Plan B than Doug Mientkiewicz, but it's not at all fair to say that the Mets didn't want Delgado.

seawolf17
Aug 23 2005 07:20 AM

Bret Sabermetric wrote:
Instead, they went for demographics--"Hmmm, we could draw more Japanese fans if we signed a great Japanese player--let's sign this bozo for a zillion bucks and hype him to death and hope we get real lucky" isn't a policy I approve of. Likewise the other Kaz, whom I suspect was another attempt to appeal to demographics rather than f'in baseball. Also the whole Latin marketing, which has worked out better on the field but which I still find disgusting.

This is blatantly racist and offensive.

First -- I'm not going to deny that Kaz Matsui was signed to sell tickets and jerseys. But whatever his shortcomings here as a Met, he had a career .309/.349/.486 line in Japan, which is pretty damn good for a middle infielder. Did they screw up? Yes, they did. I'm not going to say it was a brilliant move, but he was not a "bozo for a zillion bucks" who they "hoped to get lucky" with.

Second -- The "other Kaz" was acquired because this team wanted another left-handed arm in the rotation, and maybe because they wanted to get rid of a clubhouse malcontent who was part of a past regime. Did they ride him too long? Obviously, but NOT because of his race.

Third -- Guess what? There are Latinos in the New York area! (Gasp!) If you don't market to everyone, you're a freaking moron. It just happened that all three of the big-dollar free agents this year were Latino... and guess what? Our GM is Latino also. If you have a problem with that, get counseling... don't bring that crap around here. There's nothing wrong with creative marketing and knowing your demographics.

I hate to say this, Bret, because sometimes I agree with you, but screw off.

(edited to complete my thought on Matsui)

Bret Sabermetric
Aug 23 2005 07:52 AM

seawolf17 wrote:
screw off.


Sorry--tight bottle-cap.

I'm not saying it was 100% race- or ethnicity-driven, nor that the Mets should never take advantage of the roster to appeal to fans. Just that the roster should be 100% baseball-driven, and THEN whatever roster you have, market that. I'm arguing that the roster was partly composed to appeal to a particular demographic, which is the part that I find disgusting, and that has blown up in the Mets' faces.

Since I wanted the Mets to sign another latin player, in addition to those they did sign, I don't think you can accuse me of racism here, at least not fairly.

Bret Sabermetric
Aug 23 2005 08:01 AM

Yancy Street Gang wrote:
="Elster88"]I thought they made the same offer to Delgado that Florida did.


They pretty much did. It's not that the Mets didn't want to sign Delgado, it's that Delgado didn't seem to like the Mets. Something about Omar and Fred's approach rubbed Delgado the wrong way.

I do wish there was a better Plan B than Doug Mientkiewicz, but it's not at all fair to say that the Mets didn't want Delgado.


You may bet your gluteus maximus that they would gladly pay him their final offer plus, say, another 20 Mil, if they could turn back time to the winter of '04-'05. They didn't want to pay over a certain amount to nail him down, and so they gambled, and they lost. I call that not wanting him badly enough.

Once having lost him, they could have decided to overpay Sexton and other available slugging 1B men, but they decided to balls it out and pretend that Mienkiewicz was a viable answer. He wasn't, and I think some of us knew that at the time.

Elster88
Aug 23 2005 08:06 AM

]Once having lost him, they could have decided to overpay Sexton and other available slugging 1B men,


Well, Sexson signed in December and Delgado in January, so that's one wrong. I don't like Minky either, and have been angrily typing since the winter to those who prefer Minky, but I think after Delgado signed there was no one left.

Elster88
Aug 23 2005 08:10 AM

How did this discussion come up? This thread was supposed to be about how more Met fans are racists then in the past.

seawolf17
Aug 23 2005 08:17 AM

Bret Sabermetric wrote:
I'm arguing that the roster was partly composed to appeal to a particular demographic, which is the part that I find disgusting, and that has blown up in the Mets' faces.


I apologize for blasting off; it was too early in the morning. I enjoy your posts, Bret; I really do. Just sometimes -- aaaaaaaaaargh!

I would not say it's "blown up in their faces." This team is in the hunt for a wild-card spot, coming off a season in which they lost 91 games and finished 21 games out of the playoffs. I'd say that's pretty good. Could they be better? Certainly. But it's hard to go from 91 losses to 91 wins. They're at least going in the right direction now, I think.

Elster88
Aug 23 2005 09:12 AM

Bret Sabermetric wrote:
I'm arguing that the roster was partly composed to appeal to a particular demographic, which is the part that I find disgusting, and that has blown up in the Mets' faces.


Or maybe, just maybe, it's because the best available hitter and pitcher in the off season were both of a certain demographic.

MFS62
Aug 23 2005 09:41 AM

Elster88 wrote:
Or maybe, just maybe, it's because the best available hitter and pitcher in the off season were both of a certain demographic.


Actually, the top three were of the same heritage: (with a slight change)
Best pitcher; Pedro
Best Player: Beltran
Best Hitter: Delgado

Based on the past few years, many fans felt the priority was the best hitter and Omar should have signed Delgado, using some of the money spent on Beltran. The team really didn't need a centerfielder. Cameron was more adequate at that position than anyone the Mets had to play frist.

This has nothing to do with race. And Bret said so.

Later

rpackrat
Aug 23 2005 11:56 AM

Getting back to the original topic of this thread: I think the assholishness of Mets fans reflects the coarsening of the broader culture. With the advent of 24/7 cable news and sports networks came the need to fill all that airtime, which led to screaming heads on both news and sports channels. Soon, this came to be an accepted means of discourse, and arguments were "won" by simply expressing opinions the loudest, no matter how objectively, demonstrably wrong those opinions might be. As basic respect and civility disappear from the common discourse, it disappears in other contexts as well. Not to say that sports fans couldn't be rude or obnoxious in the past, but I think it really has sunk to a new level in recent years.

ScarletKnight41
Aug 23 2005 12:01 PM

I seem to remember more drunken brawls at Shea in the early 80s than what I see today.

silverdsl
Aug 23 2005 02:01 PM

rpackrat wrote:
As basic respect and civility disappear from the common discourse, it disappears in other contexts as well. Not to say that sports fans couldn't be rude or obnoxious in the past, but I think it really has sunk to a new level in recent years.
I completely agree and it's not just a problem at sporting events. It seems like there's a general increase in the level of rudeness and lack of consideration for other people. Sometimes it's really disheartening. But in terms of sporting events specifically I've seen asshats of the kind we're referring to in this thread at every game or race I've been to so it's definitely not just a Mets fan thing. I'm astonished by some of the things that fans do and say, what they expect and how they think they're entitled to act because they bought a ticket. I just don't understand the mindset that some fans are in which they think that taunting players with the kind of personal insults that were directed at those Mets players is okay.

Elster88
Aug 23 2005 02:03 PM

I see where you all are going. Exhibit A would be the Pistons-Pacers fiasco last December. Someone did throw that beer, regardless of whether Artest was also being an asshole/asshat.

Diamond Dad
Aug 23 2005 02:13 PM
Blame the media??

Not sure that we can blame borish fans on the cable news channels. To some extent, it has become more acceptable to boo the home town team, and to shout slurs from the stands. Time was when a nearby fan would shut you up (perhaps accounting for more fights in the stands??). I've seen the same in other cities. Some people are just less inhibited about shouting out at the players (home and visitor). Of course, they wouldn't say those things to their face in a bar, but from the safety of the stands, anything goes. I don't think most of these dickheads are really true fans, but even diehards sometimes have to let off some steam.

I remember booing lustily when Doug Sisk walked in from the Shea bullpen. So, in every era, there are guys that you just want to see leave the team. This year, it's Kaz Matsui. He can't win.

Nymr83
Aug 23 2005 03:10 PM

] It seems like there's a general increase in the level of rudeness and lack of consideration for other people


blame the internet.

Rockin' Doc
Aug 23 2005 05:53 PM

I agree with rpackrat. The increase in uncivil and disrespectful behavior by fans at sporting events is merely a reflection of our society as a whole. An increasing number of people seem to be concerned only with their own desires and rights. Fewer people seem to care about common courtesy and respect for those around them.

mlbaseballtalk
Aug 23 2005 06:14 PM

Was doing some thinking about my "Blame it on the media sucking up to the MFY since the start of the Torre era" theory and it dawned on me that, in the same era you don't have the same situation with other teams in the NYC area. All other fan bases seem to exist on there own and the media doesn't churn out articles or radio show topics about how the gulf between the teams has widen to the point where one team is rendered irrelavant.

I mean the Jets were 1-15 for a season within the last ten years and no one opened their radio show saying "The Jets are a dot on the NYC landscape, no one cares. The Jets are so insignifcant that they'll never topple the Giants" the way Don LaGreca did with the Mets last year.

Net, Devil and Islander fans have never called WFAN or 1050 telling the host that they have a "Knick/Ranger Eye for the Net/Devil/Islander Guy" like I heard a "Met" fan tell Michael Kay once (Yankee Eye for the Met Guy) Granted right now the Devils and Nets are doing better than the Garden duo but the Garden duo is still the more popular teams in their respective sports no matter what in this town

Basically it does seem that the Mets as an organization and by extension the fans, or at least the "fans" who call up radio shows and/or write letters to the sports page editors keep listening to what the media keeps feeding them about how the current Yankee dynasty might be the best ever, how the Mets never really could compete with them, even though they share the same revenue streams (again forgetting that Steinbrenner forged historic deals with Addias and MSG which is how they got alot of their revenue streams) and how the Mets doing what they been doing for the last 40 some years will continue to be the "Fredo Corleones" of baseball or fall behind the Metrostars and Liberty in terms of insignificance in this town

Steve

Edgy DC
Aug 29 2005 11:42 AM

I think it's hard to argue that deviancy hasn't been defined down. The creeps who get on the radio have added the distinction of professionalism to being a creep.