The blog for Mets fans
who like to read


Greg Prince and Jason Fry
Faith and Fear in Flushing made its debut on Feb. 16, 2005, the brainchild of two longtime friends and lifelong Met fans.

Greg Prince discovered the Mets when he was 6, during the magical summer of 1969. He is a Long Island-based writer, editor and communications consultant. Contact him here.

Jason Fry is a Brooklyn writer whose first memories include his mom leaping up and down cheering for Rusty Staub. Check out his other writing here.

Got something to say? Leave a comment, or email us at (Sorry, but we have no interest in ads, sponsored content or guest posts.)

Need our RSS feed? It's here.

Visit our Facebook page, or drop by the personal pages for Greg and Jason.

Or follow us on Twitter: Here's Greg, and here's Jason.


Years ago I was in Los Angeles for work, and because of some cellphone-related mishap wound up using my room's phone for a long-distance call. For this, I was presented with a shockingly large bill upon checkout. When I expressed my surprise and indignation, the scruffy front-desk clerk smiled broadly and said, “Yeah, they get you every time, don't they?” To which I responded, now more indignant, “Who, exactly, are they? And how are you not them?”
Which brings me to John Harper's rather curious column in yesterday's Daily News. For the most part, it's a straightforward account of why Willie opted to see what Pedro Feliciano and Joe Smith had in the eighth, rather than following the expected script and summoning Aaron Heilman. Harper then talks about the Mets' swagger and asks if the '07 team will erase the Cardinals with the same indignation the '86 team did after being edged out by St. Louis in '85. A fair question, and a historically minded one to boot. I liked all that just fine. I like Harper just fine — he co-wrote the marvelous The Worst Team Money Could Buy, and I'm always happy to see his byline. But I'm baffled by the weird subjunctive woven through this column.
Like this bit, for example:
[H]ere's the difference between how the manager thinks, as compared to fans and sportswriters:
We look at the season opener, particularly this one against a Cardinals team that denied the Mets a berth in the World Series, as a tone-setter. As such, we wonder why Randolph would take such a chance on an untested reliever with a 5-1 lead and risk a meltdown that could have set the ugliest tone imaginable for 2007.
Randolph laughs at that mind-set, insists there is nothing sacred about a season opener, even in this setting, and says he has to manage with a bigger picture in mind.
Something sound strange there? How about here:
The score of this 6-1 victory won't tell just how close this opener came to turning into a referendum on Randolph's managing acumen and wiping out an otherwise sparkling effort on the part of his ballclub.
Or here:
You can argue Randolph's big-picture explanation either way, but had the Mets lost it would have been drowned out by all the screaming from fans and sportswriters.
I know exactly the kind of idiot fans Harper means — they're the ones who would have been howling on the FAN that Game 2 is the time to see what Joe Smith's made of, but not Game 1, because a veteran, battle-tested team that loses Game 1 in the late innings will be so depressed by a bad tone having been set and momentum being lost that that team will glumly shuffle into third place behind the Phillies and Braves. Or some such barber-shop bullshit. Bad move by the Mets there, Mike and/or the Mad Dog would have tut-tutted, before talking about what Joe Torre would have done.
Yes, I'm familiar with this idiocy. And had it happened that way, I'm sure I would have read words to that effect by a couple of writers who convinced me they were idiots a long time ago. But would I have read that from Harper? He clearly establishes that he can see the bigger picture — he explains it just fine several places in the column — before turning around and suggesting it would have been his unhappy duty to blind himself to that bigger picture had the Mets coughed up the lead.
Really? If the Mets had lost, would Harper have written a column he seems to understand would have been myopic? Does Harper believe — as “fans and sportswriters” supposedly do, that Game 1s are tone-setters? Would he have turned his day-after column into a referendum on managing acumen? Would he have been one of the voices screaming? If you're smart enough to know all that's silly, would you jump on the Stupid Column/Dimwit Call to the FAN Bandwagon with the slack-jawed yokels and the braying mooks anyway?
And that's what's got me confused. If the Mets had lost, what force would have prevented Harper from writing a column that started something like this:
If you're a Met fans still moaning about the bad tone set by last night's bullpen debacle, come in off the ledge. An opening-night loss hurts. A 7-6 opening-night loss to the Cardinals hurts worse. But it doesn't count any more in the standings than a loss in Game 2 or in Game 83 or in any of the 60-odd other games the Mets are guaranteed to lose even if 2007 returns them to the playoffs.
Willie Randolph understands this. While unhappy about Joe Smith's less-than-stellar debut, the Mets manager scoffed at the sky-is-falling mind-set in St. Louis last night, insisting there is nothing sacred about a season opener, even in this setting, and reminding us that he has to manage with a bigger picture in mind.
And he's right.
Was that so hard? Would someone have forced Harper to tear up that column and write something without the reason and the logic?
That hotel clerk all those years ago was an idiot, but I wasn't entirely fair to him: I doubt he had the authority to strike that obscenely expensive phone call from my bill. But I presume John Harper gets to write the column he thinks he should write. I know the kind of fans and sportswriters he lampoons, and I'm confident he's a lot smarter than they are. But that only makes me more baffled by the suggestion he'd move in lockstep with them. So how about it, John? We're going to be together for a long season — show us how you are not them.

7 comments to Pronouns

  • Anonymous

    I also found that Harper column curiously passive-aggressive and suspect that his laptop contains the very referendum he refers to.
    It's like Jay Payton getting hit by a pitch. He'll make a show of how he'd like to kick Chuck James' ass, while practically begging his teammates to hold him back.

  • Anonymous

    Yeah, I can't say I would have been screaming and panicking if we'd lost. I mean, yes, beating the Cardinals held much significance to me psychologically. And yes, this bullpen scares the ever-lovin' bejesus out of me. Every last ounce of bejesus I contain, if you wanna know.
    But to freak out over possibly losing game 1 as if it's somehow a harbinger of things (not) to come in October? Uh, don't think so. But then, what do I know? I'm a notorious Pollyanna.
    What a load of crap.

  • Anonymous

    I can't see you getting all upset over losing Game 1 of the season Laurie.
    After all, it's not as important a game as all those spring training losses that distressed you so.

  • Anonymous

    I didn't get distressed over the losses… it was what I was seeing. Or not seeing.
    Sure, I enjoy winning. But the Mets could go 0-162 and not a single boo would pass my lips, nor would I go to any fewer games, nor would I just stop showing up once we were mathematically eliminated (in the event of a slightly better showing than 0-162). I'm not a fair-weather fan. Winning is not a condition of my fandom. If it was, I would have given up on the Mets long ago.

  • Anonymous

    I must have missed Willie being unhappy with Smith,I don't recall him saying anything really negative about him,Harper did pick the Mets to win the WS,I always thought of him as more of a yankee hack.

  • Anonymous

    I like Harper, I really do. I wouldn't bother critiquing a column by the guys I only read to keep my blood pressure properly elevated.
    I love Joe Smith — he's got guts, and he pitched just fine. A sneak-through-the-hole single, a K, and Pujols got one pitch and didn't fish for ones he just would have beat into the ground.
    Of course I gotta be careful about being sentimental. I loved Henry Owens too.

  • Anonymous

    Look, nobody likes to lose, and nobody likes a heartbreaking loss. Least of all me.
    But there is no such thing as a “precedent setting” win or loss. Look at all the years the Mets won on opening day and then proceeded to stink up the rest of the season. Then look at the 2005 squad that went 0-5 to start the season, including an opening game that finished out with Radon Blooper getting completely unglued and blowing the save, and damn near made the playoffs anyway — only a nastybad interleague record kept them out.
    And you don't even have to go back that far to see that. Look how awful-awful the Cardinals were in the final weeks of the regular season. They almost didn't make the playoffs at all.
    Harper knows this. He's just trying to stir up shite to sell papers and get adclicks. They're desperate over there in Paid Mediaville.