The blog for Mets fans
who like to read

ABOUT US

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 faithandfear@gmail.com. (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.

Stuck in the Why and Now

Why did the Mets hire CRG Partners? Beats the hell out of me.

Intuition — which is often fallible — strongly suggests it isn’t just to tinker with bookkeeping, or to draw a couple of lines differently on the org chart. The nature of the Mets’ situation and the kind of business companies like CRG do both make you suspect something more is going on.

It also doesn’t help that, to be blunt, the last few years have trained me to automatically discount anything the Mets say about their own business affairs.

But the nature of that something more that might or might not be going on? You got me. And this is where I start to worry about how the world we live in has changed, and might be making us all a bit nuts.

I love all things digital. I made my bones as a journalist and writer in the digital world. My daily work life is almost entirely digital. Heck, Greg Prince and I began as digital friends, and our collaboration wouldn’t exist without a whole bunch of digital magic. Not so long ago, I used to listen to a Mets game a week by parking my car next to the Potomac River and cranking the scratchy radio, and my fondest hopes were for 30 seconds of Mets highlights on SportsCenter and the Washington Post to run two paragraphs from the AP instead of just the box score. Now, I can hear the Mets on my phone anywhere in the world, watch them on my iPad for a fairly modest amount of money, and I can absorb as much Mets news and opinion as I have time for, even on Jan. 9.

This is beyond a dream come true — we’re the fricking baseball Jetsons, even if we barely realize it.

But there is a downside, and I think you can see it at work with whatever’s going on with the Mets.

Between all this information, and all these voices, and the fact that the news cycle never stops, our habits for consuming information have changed. And so too have our expectations, which are curdling into demands. Between comment sections and Facebook status updates and text messages and Twitter, our vocabulary is increasingly dominated by two words:

1) WHY?

and

2) NOW!

This isn’t the end of the world, but it does leave us with a problem we don’t know how to solve yet. Our increasing voracity for information — summed up by those two little syllables — can leave us out of step with how inquiries get made and issues get solved. You see this, increasingly, with both people and organizations when they’re confronting allegations and potential scandals. We want to know why (followed, as always, by more whys), and we want to know now, and if we aren’t satisfied on either score, we will be inundated by voices accusing someone of incompetence, bad faith, or venality.

But what we’re in danger of forgetting is that sometimes it takes time to get to why. And that telling some stories now, before they’re complete, changes what happens.

Which brings us back to the Mets.

Let’s try a scenario: Suppose you were facing legal jeopardy that might be grim but survivable, or might mean your financial ruin. You’d need to be prepared for both eventualities. And that would mean hiring someone whose job was to think of the unthinkable, and figure out how you’d navigate that. It wouldn’t mean that you’d made up your mind to do something, just that you had accepted that you might be forced to. If you were in that situation, there would be a host of reasons — from deepening your own legal peril to not wanting to endure more distractions to distaste for the whole spectacle — for not discussing it publicly.

In 1995 this wouldn’t have been an issue. Today it is.

Here’s another scenario: Suppose you were the czar of a sports league, and you had accepted that one of your premier clubs was in such financial distress that its owners — who’d been your supporters in a lot of knife-in-the-back political fights — needed to step aside. Having reached that unhappy pass, would you move quickly, or deliberately? Quickly means likely legal strife, a blizzard of embarrassing press coverage, wrecked personal relationships and a cloud of suspicion the next time you have to do such a thing. Deliberately might land you in the same fix, but your chances are better.

Such a thing was never easy. But today the ceaseless choruses of why and now make it a lot harder.

(If this is too baroque for you, substitute firing the incompetent, litigious guy down the hall. Yeah, a public stoning is justified. But it’s probably smarter, if a lot less satisfying, to let his contract lapse or start filing the paperwork to eliminate his position.)

I don’t know if either of the above baseball scenarios has any basis in reality. I’m glad we know about CRG, and proud that one of our blog brethren ferreted out the news. And I understand that being discreet and deliberate can be a cover for perpetuating rotten institutions and hiding gross misconduct. But sometimes things take time and take place behind closed doors. That’s something we increasingly have trouble accepting, because we’re being trained to demand the opposite.

Hat tip to this Will Leitch post, which covers somewhat different ground but got me thinking.

Turn the Mets Around

The Mets are only enlisting a “turnaround consultant” now? Where was this service in September 2007? August 2002? May 1993? June 1977? The Mets have definitely been in need of a few sharp 180s in their storied history. You’d figure they’d have a “turnaround consultant” on call 24/7.

The “turnaround” in question isn’t directly baseball-related, though I guess a sturdy financial footing would be the first step back on a player-procurement path that isn’t littered with the likes of Omar Quintanilla, Jeff Stevens and Corey Wimberley. I’ll take the easy way out and say I have no idea what the revelation contained in Eno Sarris’s report at Amazin’ Avenue will lead to — it’s easy and it also happens to be true. The endgame might be in sight where a sale of the New York Mets is concerned. Or, per what CRG Partners says it does, unique operational and financial challenges faced by the Mets organization may be singularly focused upon and that organization’s results may be changed.

I honestly don’t know that an outcome from this news is preordained, I do know companies don’t enlist consultants of this nature because a tweak here and a tightening there is in order. I also know that when a company starts bringing in people like these, it’s tough to believe the statements that are issued as explanation.

The Mets’ statement is, “Mets Limited Partnership engaged CRG Partners to provide services in connection with financial reporting and budget processes.” It sounds pretty innocent, as if the only thing ownership has been lacking lately is someone to strongly recommend the colors on the tabs of the file folders be changed.

I find myself reminded of a company for which I worked some time ago. It was neither public nor large. Those of us employed by it figured everything was pretty much status quo until one day somebody picked up an industry newsletter and noticed an item about our president retaining the services of a firm that placed valuations on companies like ours for the purpose of selling them. Naturally, everybody got very curious and very nervous, for nobody told us anything — we had to read about it second-hand. When approached, our president said, basically, “Oh, that…it’s nothing.”

Three months later, the new owners stood in the middle of our office introducing themselves to us.

The Mets are a private enterprise that we semi-reasonably treat as a quasi-public trust. We don’t work for them, though you could say we are, collectively, their biggest client. So we have an interest in what hiring the firm that shepherded the Texas Rangers through bankruptcy and into new ownership means. Right now, I suppose, it means whatever we wish it to mean, at least until it doesn’t or, more likely, somebody brings the new owners around to meet everybody.

Three for Thursday

Who says there’s nothing to do on a Thursday in January? Three things you the Mets fan should know about:

1) Blood drive at Citi Field (I swear I was gonna say “at Shea”) between 10 and 5. Good cause, of course, and a bonus show of appreciation from your New York Metropolitans in the way of two tickets for a game in April when you roll up your sleeve and give; a discount at the team store is part of the bargain, too. The donations will be, shall we say, collected in Caesars Club — no fancy seats required, just a vein. Enter Hodges gate on the first base side. Park in Lot G if your mode of transportation involves parking.

2) As noted in the previously posted consideration of George Vecsey, the columnist who covered Casey Stengel and the ’62 Mets will be taking part in the Varsity Letters series of sports literature reading, 7:30, the Gallery at LPR on Bleecker between Sullivan and Thompson, an establishment accessible via multiple subway lines. Joining George (who recently published a biography of early Met-killer Stan Musial) will be Mark Ribowsky, author of a new bio of the first Mets radio pre- and postgame host, otherwise known as Howard Cosell. Dave Zirin, who has lately written about John Carlos and the 1968 Olympics, will round out a formidable trio of writers for your listening/q&a pleasure.

3) If you’re intent on sticking to your couch Thursday night, SNY has at 7:30 a…wait for it…new Mets Classic! The network delves deep into its vaults and fishes out from July 3, 2011, the Subway Series game that made Jason Bay seem like a bargain. (Gosh, I can remember it like it took place six months ago.) No, it’s not some incredible video find from 1973 or even the pre-SNY 2000s, but as we often say of our Bayloved left fielder, it’s better than nothing.

By George (Vecsey, that is)

Good thing in this day and age that a farewell column doesn’t have to be definitive. George Vecsey published his in the Times last month, yet he is still writing — for himself and for his old paper on an occasional basis. That’s a pretty good thing, indeed, for Mets fans who like to read.

I’m glad I can still find some George Vecsey if not as much as I had grown used to for the better part of three decades I spent reading him as a featured Sports of the Times columnist. There was a handful of bylines that stopped me cold in sports sections as I fed my newspaper addiction through the ’80s, ’90s and ’00s. George Vecsey’s was generally the most delightful stop as I made my daily rounds from the News to the Post (when I wasn’t partaking of one of my periodic anti-Murdoch boycotts, the most recent of which has been in effect since March 2003), Newsday and, saved for last as if I had to earn it, the Times.

Maybe if more people like me hadn’t gotten out of the seven-day three/four-newspaper habit, newspapers wouldn’t be chronically offering buyout packages that longtime newspaper employees — skilled at reading writing on walls as they are — feel compelled to accept. George Vecsey accepted his buyout after 50 or so years of writing for newspapers. Some would call that a good, long run. His devoted readers would say it hasn’t been quite long enough.

I think I looked forward to Vecsey because he seemed so much more like a person who wrote a column about sports than a sports columnist. If he enjoyed his subject matter, he didn’t hide it. If he didn’t, he wasn’t any more cynical about it than he had to be. Vecsey wrote lovingly about sports for which I will never rustle two hoots — say, soccer — and let me know what he thought was wrong with the bigger-time sports the rest of us tend to consumer in mass quantities; as a f’rinstance, he could do without the crushing enormity football represents. After the columns begin to number in the thousands, you pick up on recurring themes. In the wrong hands, the reader’s senses are dulled. With Vecsey, it was a consistently engaging conversation resumed. I would read him on soccer. I would read him on football. I would sure as hell read him on baseball.

In an interview with Gelf Magazine to plug his appearance at Varsity Letters in Manhattan this Thursday night, the professional who abided by the sportswriter’s code to not root for teams the way a fan would did allow to Michael Gluckstadt that, “Deep down, we probably are all National League baseball fans, and I know how to agonize with the Mets. That’s what they are for.”

One’s orange and blue hackles may instinctively rise in the face of such resigned fatalism, but from George Vecsey, I’ll accept it in good humor. The man was present at the creation, for goodness sake. He covered the Mets in 1962. He covered Casey Stengel. Stengel, he wrote a few years ago in an essay for a book called Coach, has never really departed his consciousness:

I can picture him naked, a tough old bird in his early seventies, his Mets uniform lying discarded on the floor of his office, while he pounded his burly chest and proclaimed the entire franchise was “a fraud”.

Casey was doing something no other man in “the baseball business” had ever done — he was managing and performing vaudeville at the same time. He was creating a personality for a bad baseball team in the toughest market in the country. He was inventing the New York Mets on the fly.

Like an unclad Ol’ Perfesser, it may be hard to shake the image of the Mets as what the Mets were when Vecsey first encountered them. When I see them, my instinct is to still LOOK WHO’S NO. 1 as the shot of the scoreboard advised me in September 1969. George sees them and he’s tangled up in empathetic agony. We all filter information in our own way.

Not that the man from the Times doesn’t know the whole story. He wrote one grand book about 1969, Joy In Mudville, before leaving sports for news and features, and another about 1986, A Year In The Sun. The former has been understood as essential to the Mets canon since its 1970 publication, but the latter (on whose cover the author stands among comfortingly familiar orange box seats) captures as well as any contemporary account the excitement that surrounded the Mets in their most overwhelmingly successful season.

Published in 1989, A Year In The Sun is essentially a columnist’s diary. Vecsey tours a momentous year on the beat, offering a veritable commentary track to his ’86 columnic output, the heart of which can be found when he’s writing about the best Mets team ever. One passage finds him at Shea on the day of the Home Opener, where he allows us to meet or better know an array of characters from Frank Cashen to Dick Young to his late father who introduced him to the joy of newspapers and clung to his own foothold in the business (inside Shea’s press box, no less) as long as he could.

Later on, George spends virtually all of October with the Mets, which was a very good month to be a sports columnist in New York. Here he takes us inside the less glamorous aspects of filing on deadline in those pre-Internet days, especially when the lede changes and changes again. Reflecting on the Game Six column he planned to write about the Bambino avenged and the one he actually wrote about Buckner’s unwanted date with destiny, Vecsey — all pro, no fan by then — admitted, “I had thought a Red Sox championship would be the best story of this Series. Show how much imagination I have.”

Yet the best Met story materializes in November of 1986, when George Vecsey is taking his teenage son David (today a Times copy editor) to Boston to visit colleges. Two New Yorkers in Boston a month after the Series to end all Series. The father is not on assignment now. Instead of hewing to objectivity, George and David are all agloat as they walk the back end of Fenway Park, recalling the Game Three leadoff swing that turned the Series away from the Red Sox and toward the Mets:

We are chortling now, looking down at the sidewalk to see if the Greater Boston Historical Society has gotten around to including this historic moment on the footpath for tourists. This is where Cotton Mather preached his fire-and-brimstone-sermons. This is where Paul Revere warned that the Redcoats were coming. This is where Len Dykstra’s home run took off into the night.

George was midcareer then, at least as far as daily newspapering went. He’s now an occasional contributor to the Times sports section and otherwise blogging on whatever moves him. When he started with Newsday in 1960, he was about the same age Casey Stengel was when that young feller was getting his baseball feet wet with Kankakee in the Northern Association. For what it’s worth, Vecsey’s 72 now, or the age Ol’ Case turned in the midst of the Mets’ first season. As the self-described “only journalist I know who has interviewed Casey Stengel, Loretta Lynn and the Dalai Lama” (and was pretty sure he “understood all three of them”) takes flight in a new direction, I look forward to reading George Vecsey reinvent himself on the fly.

Hofstra Mets Conference Calling

The Hofstra Cultural Center’s conference honoring the 50th Anniversary of the New York Mets is coming Thursday to Saturday, April 26-28, and if you’re in interested in contributing a paper or presentation regarding some aspect of your favorite ballclub, please contact me at faithandfear@gmail.com. Full details are posted here (with some more information here).

This conference, celebrating the Mets at this milestone juncture in their history, was the brainchild of the late Dana Brand, a great friend to all Mets fans in blogging and in rooting. Dana was a longtime professor at Hofstra and got the conference moving toward reality before his sudden passing last May. The rest of us working on it look forward to pushing it across the finish line in his memory, and you are most heartily invited to join in that push.

We’ve received some great proposals that examine the Mets from all kinds of angles since first mentioning the conference in November, and more great proposals are welcome through next week. Again, please e-mail me with your ideas or any questions, and I’ll do my best to be of assistance. Thank you.

This also seems like a decent time to ask you to consider making a contribution to the Dana Brand Memorial Scholarship Fund at Hofstra. You can send online contributions to www.hofstra.edu/giving. Under “Gift Designation,” please specify the Dana Brand Memorial Scholarship Fund. If you prefer to contribute by check, please send whatever you can to Meredith Celentano; Assistant Vice President for Development; 102Q Hofstra Hall; Hempstead, NY 11549. Anything you can do to help a student carry on in Dana’s name is greatly appreciated.

Day to Day Already?

You’d think it would be too soon for a 2012 injury update, but we received one worth passing along regarding FAFIF reader Andrew Hees. His uncle Phil reports Andrew and his family were the passenger victims of a car accident on New Year’s Eve. Andrew, a devoted Mets fan with whom I had the pleasure of taking in a game just before he started high school this past September, was thrown from the vehicle and had to spend the first overnight of 2012 in the hospital for observation (or “the entire year,” as Andrew put it upon his release). Happily, no serious injury for him, though his younger brother Timothy went on the proverbial DL with a fractured elbow.

We wish all involved a speedy recovery in plenty of time for Pitchers & Catchers.

Step Into 2012 From Way Back

Happy New Year! We look forward to an exciting 2012 here at Faith and Fear, even if we have to create the excitement ourselves. But isn’t that what Mets fans do when the Mets don’t necessarily contribute as much fun as they could?

And while you’re waiting for pitchers, catchers and trustees to report to Spring Training, may I suggest a few well-chosen steps into baseball to get this year started briskly? Our friend Peter Laskowich, New York and baseball historian par excellence is conducting one of his all-absorbing walking tours of Brooklyn on Monday morning, 10 o’clock. The subject is our National Pastime and its deep Kings County roots.

“Most of baseball comes from Brooklyn,” Peter writes. “The borough devoted itself to baseball from the start, fostering all three of the great early teams, inventing the curveball and the bunt, and establishing the craft of pitching. For Brooklyn, a proud city absorbed into New York in 1898, a baseball team became essential in gaining attention and respect. Said one civic leader in the 1930s, ‘we exist again as [independent] Brooklyn every time the Dodgers take the field.’ The same factors that led to the borough’s unparalleled allegiance to its team would one day make the Brooklyn Dodgers central to the cause of American racial integration.”

I took this tour in 2009 (and went on two of Peter’s Manhattan sojourns) and can vouch for the vibrancy of the presentation. Peter knows his stuff and tells it so it becomes your stuff. It’s a great time for any New York baseball fan who likes to learn a little more every day. Spent part of your Monday with Peter, and you’ll have learned plenty.

If you’re interested, please get in touch with Peter via e-mail at peterlaskowich@earthlink.net or call him at 862/226-1244. Reservations are required.

Also recommended, albeit with regrets, is Matt Silverman’s beautiful tribute to his friend Greg Spira, who passed away a few days ago at the age of 44. Read it here.

The 49th Parallels

With my incurring a 49th birthday today, I received a number of touching messages from Mets who can truly relate to being 49. Thought I’d share them with you.

“Let me be the FIRST to wish you happy birthday.”
Don Aase

“I’ll see to it that your birthday’s perfect even if it falls to me to ensure that perfection.”
John Stephenson

“Too banged up — again — to write much.”
Jon Niese

“Wanna meet for lunch? I could really go for Howard Johnson.”
Walt Terrell

“How about dessert? I could really go for a cone.”
Ed Hearn

“We should get together for a drink. You pick the place this time.”
Dyar Miller

“TODAY’S the big day? Cripes, I’m not ready yet.”
Phil Humber

“I didn’t have time to get you anything while I was in town, but next year I promise I’ll have something memorable for you.”
Brad Clontz

“Let me know what you think of the book. It’s ‘Meditations In An Emergency’. It really got me through some challenging times one summer.”
Don Schulze

“MEOW!”
Felix Heredia

“Happy…WAIT! I DIDN’T EVEN GET A CHANCE!”
Ruddy Lugo

“Listen, I feel terrible about blowing out all those candles when you were looking forward to the big finish. Just my instinct for blowing kicking in at the absolutely biggest moments, I guess. But I did save you some cake. No, not the really important pieces, but here’s some I saved like back in June. Those are important, too, if you think about it. I mean, c’mon, we wouldn’t even have made it to end of the year in position to have some of the tastier portions of this cake if not for what I did earlier. Right? Right?”
Armando Benitez

No Bread, So How About Some Circuses?

I don’t think the 2012 Mets will be as bad as most people seem to think … but that’s not the same thing as thinking the 2012 Mets will actually be good.

I’ll think they’ll be mediocre, with a relatively robust offense but too many No. 4 starters in the rotation and too many improved teams in the National League East. And like a lot of mediocre teams, I think we’ll only be able to take their measure a few years further down the road. Looking back from the vantage point of, say, 2015, the 2012 Mets might strike us as a team that was beginning to benefit from the sounder foundation built by Sandy Alderson and Co. in preparation for the Wilpons’ return to financial health and the blossoming of the farm system. Or they might strike us as a pointless way station before the last of Omar Minaya’s contracts ran out, Alderson and his team escaped and the Mets took up residence in the cellar as the Pirates East, with fans pleading for Bud Selig to finally take the team away from its penniless ownership.

I’ll hope for the former — while bracing for the latter.

But either way, this isn’t going to be a great team in 2012. It’s going to be one that will play with plenty of black clouds over its head. And it’s one that could use some distractions.

We’ve got some distractions already — the return of uniforms like they oughta be, the reappearance of Banner Day, and the retraction of distant fences. I don’t mean that to be cynical — I think the first two are great ideas and the third is worth a try. Distractions in the service of worthy causes can be good things.

But how about another one — one that’s openly sentimental and admittedly a bit foolish?

It’s starting to be a long ago somehow, but once upon a time the Mets boasted The Best Infield Ever — John Olerud, Edgardo Alfonzo, Rey Ordonez and Robin Ventura. They never won a title — Olerud departed for Seattle, Ventura’s renaissance proved fleeting, and Ordonez’s uselessness at the plate and shortcomings as a person became impossible to ignore — but while they were together they combined for reliably thrilling baseball night after night at Shea. I loved them all at various points, but the one I cheered for most fervently was Edgardo Alfonzo.

Alfonzo came up when the Mets were bad, and even while he scuffled I was certain that he would become a star — I loved his sense of the strike zone, his ability to work himself into good counts, how his swing was simple and unfussy, and how he proved useful whereever the Mets put him on the infield. As it happened, I was right — he was front and center when the Mets finally became a team that once again inspired pride alongside devotion. He seemed to like it here, he was homegrown, and I dreamed of one day standing at Shea or some successor to it and cheering a 40-something Fonzie into retirement. He’d be a good bet to get 13 added to the wall of retired numbers, a lock for the Mets Hall of Fame, and we’d insist to all comers that he had the credentials for admission to that other Hall up in Cooperstown. We’d be wrong, unable or unwilling to see that our love was papering over a statistical gap, but wrong for all the right reasons.

It didn’t work out that way.

It usually doesn’t, but it’s still heartbreaking.

The Mets let Fonzie become a free agent after the 2002 season, and much as I’m loath to admit it, Steve Phillips was right about that one. Fonzie put up two OK seasons for San Francisco, turned 30, and came apart like a cheap suit. In 2006 he hit .126 in 87 at-bats between Anaheim and Toronto. He hasn’t been seen in the big leagues since.

But he’s still out there — shortly after Thanksgiving, MLB.com noted that he was playing well in Venezuela, mulling a contract to play in Japan, and still saying all the right things: “To play baseball, you love the game. That’s what I’m doing — I still love the game.” (Tip of the cap to Amazin’ Avenue for the link.)

Amazingly, he’s only 38 — still a couple of years shy of when I imagined saying farewell to him in that better alternate universe.

You can already guess what I’m going to suggest next, and you’re probably wondering if I’ve forgotten something — because you’re remembering that the Mets already tried this.

In 2006 they purchased Fonzie’s contract from the Bridgeport Bluefish of the Atlantic League, leading both me and Greg to dream of a return for Edgardo with the Mets’ soon-to-be playoff-bound club. It was perfect, it really was — and there was precedent. In 1986, Lee Mazzilli was the final piece of the Metropolitan puzzle, the 24th man on that immortal team.  He was a capable pinch-hitter and a wise old hand, but more than that he was a symbol for all of us who’d suffered through the Mets turning themselves into the North Korea of baseball, a hermit kingdom that refused to acknowledge free agency and its transformation of the game. Maz had been one of the few bright spots of those awful years, and his return felt like redemption for all of those players who had toiled uselessly under the dispirited gaze of Mettle the Mule and 2,000 fans a night. Maz got a ring, and somehow it was like Pat Zachry and Steve Henderson and Frank Taveras and Doug Flynn and Joel Youngblood and Bob Bailor got a little piece of one too.

It was a nice thought. But Alfonzo hit .241 in 42 games at Norfolk, without much power. The Mets’ postseason roster looked pretty good. He never got called up, never became the second coming of the second coming of Lee Mazzilli, and drifted off to the Long Island Ducks and Mexico and Japan and the Newark Bears and now Venezuela. He’s only 38, but he hasn’t shown much of anything since he was 30.

Against all this, I can only offer a nonsensical plea, a crazy fan’s crazy wish: I know I know I know I KNOW, but goddamn it, he’s EDGARDO ALFONZO.

Jason Isringhausen clawed his way out of the scrap heap and became an awfully nice story at the age of 38. So why not Fonzie? The Mets are shopping in the bargain aisle for middle infielders. Fonzie should be on the endcap, priced to move. So why not a spring-training invite? It would give us a chance to cheer, to read nice features in the papers, to say remember when — even if there was no guarantee that this was more than a February story. If nothing else, it would be another nice distraction. And we could use as many of those as we can get.

Enjoy Every Ballgame

Clockwise from upper right: Fans of the Mets Dana Brand, Matthew Silverman, Greg Spira, Greg Prince. Background: Home of the Mets Shea Stadium.

“More words about the Mets have been written by the people in this photograph than have been written by the people in any other photograph I’ve ever seen.”

So noted the man in the upper right of this photograph, Dana Brand, a friend I lost suddenly this past May at 56. I’m compelled to take another look at it for all the wrong reasons seven months later, having received word that the man in the lower left of this photograph, Greg Spira, has passed away at the age of 44 after battling through a longstanding series of health issues.

It’s a tough picture for me to linger over by dint of those sorrowful developments. Yet it’s a wonderful picture for me to linger over because I know what happened that day.

I formally met Greg a couple of hours before it was snapped, May 15, 2008, Nationals 1 Mets 0. I was there courtesy of the man in the lower right, Matthew Silverman. He worked closely with Greg on several baseball projects over the years. They were co-editors of the first Maple Street Press Mets Annual (then known as Meet The Mets), a publication to which Dana and I had contributed. Convening this group at Shea Stadium was Matt’s way of saying thanks to each of us for our help. Or maybe it was just an excuse to make various strands of virtual acquaintanceship a little more real in an atmosphere amenable to the lot of us.

Doesn’t matter now. What does is the four of us got to sit in somebody’s corporate field box on the third base side of Shea Stadium and watch baseball, talk baseball and thoroughly enjoy baseball together. Knowing that and remembering that — despite the sadness that has intruded on this picture twice in 2011 — reminds me (the man in the upper left, if you’re scoring at home) what a fun afternoon we had and what a good deal this Mets fandom thing is…one-nothing encounters of the wrong kind notwithstanding.

Dana was right, by the way. We all wrote a forest’s worth about our Mets. You can sample a bit of Greg Spira’s output here. He was a top-notch baseball researcher, displaying depth of curiosity and the doggedness to sate it. I got a hint of how Greg operated when he asked to touch base with me for a Mets-related piece of his in the summer of 2010. Said he’d call me and that he wouldn’t take too much of my time. We wound up on the phone for close to three hours — three of the more stimulating hours I’ve spent in conversation with anybody.

Otherwise, I knew Greg through Matt in friend-of-a-friend fashion. There were a couple of other ballgames. There was the occasional misrouted e-mail when Matt’s address book didn’t discern which Greg he meant to contact. Mostly there was that phone call and this photo and the bright, sunny May afternoon on which it was taken.

A good day to be out at the ballpark. A good day to be a Mets fan.