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.

Don't Wanna See These American Idiots

I’ve been dying to see the Mets play the Tigers in Flushing since a little before 8:00 PM on Saturday, October 14, 2006. Magglio Ordoñez had just hit a three-run homer to clinch a four-game sweep of the American League Championship Series in Detroit. We were minutes from commencing Game Three of the NLCS in St. Louis, Steve Trachsel vs. some pitcher who didn’t let down his team the way Steve Trachsel let down the Mets at the one moment in his six endless years as a Met when he was really needed. The Mets would soon be behind 2-1 in their showdown for all the National League marbles and the next four games precluded all thoughts of Detroit. Those nights would instead be devoted to the Mets scuffling to tie the Cardinals, which they did twice, and pass them, which they never did.

After seven games, the 2006 Tigers became somebody else’s opponent in the World Series. Somebody else’s victim, to be accurate. It wasn’t too much of a stretch, after the Cardinals had edged out the Mets for the pennant and went on to roll through that Fall Classic, to imagine the Mets would have done essentially the same thing. If Trachsel or Beltran or whomever you like to blame on a given day had come through a little more/at all, tonight would be not just a reasonably attractive Interleague matchup. It would be a most pleasant reminder of how we participated in and presumably won the 2006 World Series.

But it’s not that. It’s just a reasonably attractive Interleague matchup, about as attractive as one of these idiotic manufactured contests can be. I’ve been dying to see the Mets play the Tigers in Flushing for nearly four years, yes, but not in June 2010. I’ve been dying to see the Mets play the Tigers in October 2006. That ship having long ago sailed doesn’t change that stubborn desire.

I have nothing against the Tigers until 7:10 PM and will have nothing against them once they pack their striped baggage and leave town. I had nothing against the Orioles or Indians last week, either. For three days, however, I had my game face on and wished them concentrated doses of ill. Come Friday, I’ll hope we can make life miserable for the Twins in triplicate. By Monday, they can go back to being one big happy family. I don’t care about the Twins or the Indians or the Orioles or the Tigers save for the rare Octobers when they are our actual or prospective opponents. It’s odd that I am compelled to feign caring about them this month.

I’ll be out at Citi Field tonight caring deeply that the Tigers endure a bad series of baseball games. I’ll do the same tomorrow night. I like going to see the Mets, no matter who they’re playing. The opponent is rarely the attraction, but there’s usually a reassuring zero-sum gain to the scheduling. If the Mets are playing a National League team, it’s good if we win and it’s good if that other squad loses. The win and the loss make sense together. It could conceivably equal the difference between the Mets capturing a playoff spot and sitting home watching others compete (conceivably). A Met win will always be fine. A Tiger loss means not a darn thing to me. Fourteen seasons of Interleague play, counting what we’ve already seen and what lies ahead, and it still doesn’t add up.

Interleague play in October 2006…that would have made all the sense in the World. I’d take it in October 2010, too. The Tigers are having a pretty good year. Maybe we can use the next three nights for scouting purposes.

You never know. I thought I knew in October 2006. I didn’t.

***

Sharon Chapman and the FAFIF wristband after her most recent NYC Marathon tuneup, the New York Mini 10K in Central Park.

Thanks to all those who participated in our Make a Donation/Get a Book promotion earlier this month. Your great response helped push Sharon Chapman’s New York City Marathon run for the Tug McGraw Foundation significantly closer to its fundraising goal. All books have been signed and sent out, and I hope you enjoy yours if you were kind and generous enough to take part.

Learn more about Sharon’s efforts with Team McGraw here. Contribute to the cause if you can here. And if you’re interested in reading the paperback edition of Faith and Fear in Flushing: An Intense Personal History of the New York Mets, well gosh, by all means check it out here or here.

Mets Yearbook: 1978

You know what they say about taking lemons and making lemonade? Or whatever it is chickens leave behind and turning it into chicken salad? Well, I’m guessing you’ll know exactly what that’s all about tonight at 6:30 when SNY debuts Mets Yearbook: 1978, wherein a two-game improvement from 1977’s 64-98 disaster will likely be hailed as earthshaking progress, and Willie Montañez’s prancing around the bases will be framed as more entertaining than Grease, Animal House and The Eyes of Laura Mars combined.

I haven’t seen the ’78 highlight film since ’79, but if I’m not mistaken, the San Diego Chicken’s visit to Shea is featured prominently. Chicken salad all around! If you can’t scoop up your serving tonight, set your contraptions to record it Tuesday afternoon at 1:00.

By the way, 1978 was also the year the phrase “drink the Kool-Aid” came to be. I mention that because I believed the 66-96 Mets were indeed an avatar of earthshaking progress, at least for the first couple of months of that eventually depressing season. Kool-Aid, lemonade…when you’re 15 years old and the Mets are flirting with .500 on Memorial Day, you’ll drink anything and swear it’s refreshing.

Image courtesy of “Mario Mendoza…HOF lock” at Baseball-Fever.

Grumble, Grumble, Stupid Yankees Etc.

Not so long ago, the Mets losing two in a row was something that happened at least twice a week, and three times if the week were particularly unlucky.

Now, it’s vaguely shocking. Waitaminute, we lost? But we’re great! We didn’t come back? Our starting pitching wasn’t dominant? Everything didn’t turn out OK?

In truth, Johan Santana wasn’t bad — though there are more disturbing signs at the margins of his aura. Take, for instance, his declining ability to put hitters away after recording two strikes, as discussed by Mark Simon of ESPN New York.  The Yankees’ four-run third inning didn’t exactly feature a barrage of hits: There was a clean single, an infield hit, a bunt the defense turned into a baserunner, and then Mark Teixeira’s drive bouncing atop the outfield wall just above Jason Bay’s glove and vanishing into the stands for a grand slam. Yet, for all that, there’s the definite feeling that Santana has descended Mount Olympus to take up residence in its loftier foothills. The fastball is not what it was, the change-up’s location has decayed in reliability, and that makes him a different pitcher. A very good pitcher, make no mistake, but not the same pitcher. Such is the road every power pitcher must travel, and Johan’s smarts and will argue that he will make the transition just fine. But such changes aren’t immediate. This process will take more trial and error, and we have to live with that — and admit that it’s not sacrilege to ask whether the ace of the Mets’ staff, the guy you’d want in that happily imaginary one game to determine the fate of the world, might now be not Johan Santana but Mike Pelfrey.

Anyway, Mark Teixeira hit a grand slam, the Mets did absolutely nothing against C. C. Sabathia, and 2010’s Subway Series ended in a 3-3 draw. Thank God that’s over, and we can get back to … oh, fuck, more interleague play. Time for the Mets to renew their savage, age-old rivalry with the Detroit Tigers and Minnesota Twins! Sigh.

On the bright side, the Mets did finally send Jenrry Mejia down to Binghamton so he can do what he should have started doing at the end of March — namely, put more notches in his belt as a starter. All praise to the Mets for finally maximizing the value of their full roster or at least getting close to that goal; continued pointed questions about why it took the Mets until nearly the summer solstice to get right what no shortage of observers had been suggesting since the equinox.

Sticking with the bright side, the Brooklyn Cyclones took two out of three from the Staten Island Yankees to kick off their 10th campaign and Wally Backman’s return to the managerial ranks. Emily and Joshua and I were in attendance last night, having watched Joshua’s Little League team lose its season finale and the Mets lose their game to the Yankees. Happily, the Cyclones broke the streak, beating the Yankees with help from approximately 12,000 Yankee errors. Less happily, the newly christened MCU Park was a mess in a way we’ve never seen it in 10 years of taking in Cyclones games: Numerous concession stands ran out of hot dogs in the early innings and nearly everything else by the end, communication was nonexistent, and the team couldn’t even manage the t-shirt toss the first time around. Going to the Cyclones is such a reliable joy of summer that one is left devoutly insisting this was Opening Night jitters, or the stress of a record crowd — nearly 10,000 filled the park Saturday night. Here’s hoping.

What's The Rush, Fellas?

If I were a baseball player on a baseball team that had just won eight in a row and twelve of thirteen, I’d want that feeling to last forever. In fact, I’d make it last as long as I could by not swinging at the very first pitch I saw in a game that could conceivably extend my team’s winning ways to nine in a row and thirteen of fourteen.

But I’m not a baseball player. David Wright is. Jason Bay is. They’re both highly decorated baseball players, each generously compensated, both considered outstanding. So they probably have their reasons for SWINGING AT THE FIRST PITCH THEY SAW from Phil Hughes in the crucial sixth inning of the Saturday matinee that pulled the rug out from under what have been unmitigated good times.

I’ve never faced Phil Hughes. It probably looks different from the vantage point of the batter’s box than it does through the center field camera on my nice, comfy couch. And first pitches don’t necessarily equal take. Angel Pagan turned a first pitch from Joba Chamberlain into a ringing double in the eighth. Yet I can’t understand why Wright — directly after Hughes lost a ten-pitch battle on a single to Pagan — and Bay — following a six-pitch walk to Ike Davis that included a wild pitch that let Pagan dash to second — each swung at the very first pitch a pitcher conceivably on the ropes delivered.

Could those first pitches have been the pitches Wright and Bay could have driven? Anything’s possible, but a lifetime of watching baseball (exclusively from comfy couches and the like) tells me you don’t help a pitcher out, certainly not a good pitcher who may be having his moment of letdown. Make Hughes get you out would have been my advice to David Wright, just as “Make Wright #1” is the Mets’ advice to us. We’re Gaga For Wright even without the Wright Finger, but I have a sense that All-Star starter or not, David is re-entering one of his dark forests. His double play grounder Friday night in the ninth, leaving Manuel in the Valdes/K-Rod lurch, was a bad sign. The first-pitch popup to Cano in the sixth today was a worse sign. David can have an off-ish day or two, but I haven’t liked his approach lately (says the couch coach).

Bay? Jesus, he’s been quite ungood, hasn’t he? There is so much to like about his approach in the field — where he’s a far better defender than advertised — and down the line, where he never not runs out a ball — but boy is he lost at the plate. Reaching at that outside pitch from Hughes with two on and one out and a genuine chance to do damage…worst at-bat of the year by any Met. Bay taps it to Kevin Russo, it’s an easy 5-4-3 DP, hustle or not, and that was basically it for the day and the streak.

Earlier, Jeff Francouer had flied out on a first pitch. Big deal, he’s Jeff Francouer. Later, Alex Cora flied out on a first pitch. Same deal, he’s Alex Cora. I’ve come to expect more thoughtful plate appearances by Wright and Bay. We didn’t get them, which is why we are temporarily grounded after sitting on a cloud most of the past two weeks. Darn.

Mike Pelfrey wasn’t overly comfortable and it showed. But he gave us the Art Howe special and battled. Jose Reyes wasn’t overly popular in the Bronx — if you boo Jose Reyes, you’re booing happiness — and that was all to the good. Alas, Reyes’s two homers equaled our entire offensive output. Maybe this was one of those mythical “not gonna win” games, but I didn’t think it was. We had a legit shot in the sixth. We had Hughes back on his toes. He withstood the assault. Wright and Bay made it easier for him. That’s baseball sometimes.

Not going 9-0 overall, 8-0 on a road trip and 13-1 and 20-5 is a problem I wasn’t anticipating a month or so ago. The Mets have been playing so exceptionally well that I’ve come to think their winning isn’t all that exceptional. I’m moving into taking it as the norm territory. The new normal may need some work as might our expectations. That, too, is baseball.

In the meantime, winning twelve of thirteen between June 4 and June 18 represents the second time in 2010 that the Mets have put up at least a 10-1 stretch and the 39th time in franchise history they’ve gone at least 9-1. They’ve never posted a losing record in a season when they’ve done it twice. Not posting a losing record this year would have struck me as a fine goal not long ago. This evening, even after a tough loss, I want and almost expect more than that. I want and almost expect more extended winning ways. I want the Mets to pass the Braves. I want the Mets to keep this marvelous thing of theirs going. I want to expect it.

First place, not first pitch. Try to keep that straight, fellas.

Thank You Sir May I Have Two More?

The Mets couldn’t win on the road.

Then they couldn’t win on the road unless they were playing the dregs of the junior circuit.

Then … then shut up already. Up in the Bronx (technically a road game) the Mets played with confidence and swagger and every other intangible you might want to believe in. And if your taste runs to the more quantifiable, they got superb pitching, sharp defense and just enough hitting to win a 4-0 game that might have felt a lot closer than the final score, but goes down on the happy side of the ledger.

Before moving to a recitation of kudos and hosannas, let’s stop to enjoy the work of Hisanori Takahashi. Early in the game, I was trying to teach Joshua about the strategy of pitching, how you have to change speeds and eye levels and make hitters move their feet. It’s a new concept for the kid, not so much because he’s seven but because he’s still at the stage of Little League in which coaches pitch, meaning he’s never faced a pitcher who’s trying to get him out. (He looked mildly distressed but mostly intrigued by the news that hitters sometimes peek at where the catcher’s setting up, it’s not formally against the rules, but it will get you hit in the back by a fastball.)

Unfortunately, Joshua was in bed by the fifth inning, so he missed a rather nifty pitching clinic in miniature:

Vs. the Wily Veteran Jorge Posada

  • change-up just off corner, 1-0
  • change-up in same spot, fouled off, 1-1
  • change-up sits high, 2-1
  • fastball on inside corner at the knee, arguably a strike, 3-1
  • fastball outside corner at the knee, 3-2
  • change-up below the knees, walk

Vs. the Effortlessly Annoying Francisco Cervelli

  • change-up down the middle, 0-1
  • fastball on inside corner at the knees, 0-2
  • change-up on the outside corner, swing and a miss, 1 out

Vs. the Young and Overeager Chad Huffman

  • change-up for swinging strike, 0-1
  • change-up just off that same spot, 1-1
  • change-up bounced in dirt, 2-1
  • change-up down middle, 2-2
  • fastball inside corner, called strike, 2 out

Vs. the More-Dangerous-Than-I-Remember-He-Is Brett Gardner

  • fastball just inside, 1-0
  • fastball misses inside and low, was supposed to be on the other side of the plate, 2-0
  • fastball at the elbows, 2-1
  • fastball just off the plate, by Mike Reilly’s definition, 3-1
  • fastball bounced back to Takahashi for 1-3 putout, 3 out.

Not a perfect inning, but a smart one. In and out, up and down, fast and slow, knees locking and turning to jelly. Very nice to see.

Takahashi wasn’t the only Met deserving laurels, though. How about David Wright’s do-or-die, bare-handed grab of that Baltimore chop by Posada in the sixth with the bases loaded and two out? That ball seemed like it would hang in the air forever, but Wright snatched it cleanly, remembered an old catcher was running, and gave Ike Davis a good throw to escape disaster. Speaking of which, how about Wright’s nifty hook slide and passing graze of the pointy end of home plate in the first, which had the added benefit of making Cervelli mad?

How about Pedro Feliciano’s yeoman work in the seventh and eighth? I cringe when Feliciano is left in for righties to get an extended look at his sliders, but he was marvelous tonight, with the highlight watching Alex Rodriguez glumly head for the dugout even before Mike Reilly raised his hand on a called strike three. (Though honestly, who else did you want to see to face the righties? Igarashi? Nieve? My answer would be “whomever finally replaces Jenrry Mejia,” but that answer’s not admissible just yet.)

How about Jose Reyes bunting badly enough that Jerry Manuel was forced to discard a bad idea, allowing Jose Jose Jose to rip a double into the corner and nearly tear his own arms off with wild-eyed applause at second? (Cervelli is annoying, Reyes is naturally exuberant, and my judgments are refreshingly disinterested and unbiased.) How about Angel Pagan, whose reputation for dopiness ought to be long since replaced by his reputation for being money in the clutch? How about K-Rod, scaring the crap out of us as usual before wriggling past Derek Jeter and Nick Swisher? How about the baseball gods, for once again asking a Met to stagger beneath a drifting 27th out, but deciding that scenario was too awful to trot out twice? How about the Brooklyn Cyclones, for kicking off their season and Wally Backman’s return with a 5-3 win over the larval Yankees on Staten Island? How about all the Mets fans who got to celebrate in enemy territory? How about 14 hours of bliss before the roller coaster hits the top of the hill again? How about those Mets, anyway?

Subway Series Preview

MATCHUP: Us at Them, 7:05 PM Friday; 1:05 PM Saturday; 1:05 PM Sunday.

KEYS TO THE SERIES: Fuck Them. Let’s Go Mets. Not necessarily in that order.

Take Me Out to Nationals Park

Welcome to Flashback Friday: Take Me Out to 34 Ballparks, a celebration, critique and countdown of every major league ballpark one baseball fan has been fortunate enough to visit in a lifetime of going to ballgames.

BALLPARK: Nationals Park
HOME TEAM: Washington Nationals
VISITS: 1
VISITED: April 23, 2008
CHRONOLOGY: 32nd of 34
RANKING: 20th of 34

Nationals Park struck me as a reasonably attractive, small-scale, low-key, modest success when I visited it in its infancy two years ago, less kitschy than Cincinnati’s entrant among the postmodern ballpark set, not as intriguing as some other 21st century structures I’ve seen. Perhaps the best thing about being at a game there was not having to watch a game from there on TV, as the camera angles they give the visiting broadcast crew are laughably dizzying. I was on the field level and I saw pretty well, save for any time anybody stood up.

As it happened, I wasn’t looking that closely at the Mets playing the Nats that night. I was looking ahead to what it would be like sitting in a new park of my own a year down the road. Citi Field was bearing down on Shea Stadium in April 2008 and I was increasingly uncomfortable about what the future held for me. I tried to take a few cues from Nationals Park, which could only tell me so much about an entirely different place yet might tell me something. I was surprised how much it told me at that moment of arrival on April 3, 2009, when I came up the First Base escalator for the Mets-Red Sox exhibition, stared out at the field from behind the first section of seats I encountered in deep right and thought, “Geez, this is just like Philadelphia and Washington.”

That was probably the last time the desperately needed successor to RFK Stadium re-entered my consciousness except for when I’m trying to watch a telecast from there, and then I’m mostly concerned about not contracting video vertigo. I try to avoid coming into Citi from first or third most of the time. It keeps me from thinking I’m perpetually attending an away game.

But I was attending an away game in D.C., and I filed a detailed report soon after. It is offered below.

***

An out-of-town tryout used to be a staple of the theater. It was where producers ran their musicals up the flagpole to see what was saluted and what sagged in the breeze before fixing up the rough patches, packing up the trunks and transporting the whole shooting match to the Great White Way. Like those barnstorming tours that wound their way from Spring Training north to Opening Day, you don’t get out-of-town tryouts much in the theater anymore.

The audiences for these Broadway-bound previews were generally in the Northeast, not far from New York, yet worlds away: Philly, Boston, Baltimo’, as the itinerary went in Kiss Me Kate. New Haven, too. Washington? Not so much as far as I know. Yet last week, I felt I was privy to a dry run of sorts: Another ballpark op’nin’, another show — one season before the spotlight will be beamed directly onto the Great Blue & Orange Way.

Of course I wanted to go to Nationals Park because it was there. Every Major League ballpark I’ve seen (and I’ve seen 32 now) is Everest to me. And of course I wanted to go because the Mets would be playing. But there was a little extra curiosity factored into my D.C. travel plans. The Nats would be playing their eighth home game ever in their new digs. Though I’d been to a few stadia in their first season, I’d never shown up this early in the life of a park. Thus, I wanted to get a sense, just under one year from the curtain rising on Citi Field, what an almost pristine ballpark feels like.

It feels pretty good, in its out-of-town way.

Ya gotta load up any assessment you make of a ballpark as a visiting fan with a suitcase of asterisks. It’s different for you because you’re there tonight and you’re leaving tomorrow. Even if you plan on returning, it’s not home, not yours. Even if the place has still got that new park smell, yours aren’t the nostrils that are unclogged after breathing in the stale air of its predecessor. The diehard Washington Nationals fan, however rare and relatively novice, is the one who just escaped from RFK. It may take that creature months to detect any drawbacks in anything that isn’t the Federal Baseball Penitentiary.

Nationals Park offers much nicer surroundings. The now-reabandoned RFKFBp was any port in a storm for the post-Expos. It was the Hooverville of the National League East. It was Olympic Stadium without the élan. Anything that succeeded RFK — with the possible exception of the Days Inn where I bunked for the night — would have been an improvement.

It was instructive to wander the concourses of Nationals Park, to gaze at the shiny seats and scoreboard, to try to figure out why they put stuff where they did and wonder what it will be like next year when it’s us getting the lay of our own land.

With Citi Field far along, I don’t know that the Mets are looking for cues from their divisional rival. They could do worse than to borrow generously from their DiamondVision or NationalVision or whatever it’s called. It’s huge and it’s clear. They could also note what the Nats missed, like a permanent tracker of what the batter did in his last at-bat(s). With so much high-def hardware at work, there should be relevant data always at the ready, not just Marlon Anderson’s height.

My friend Jeff and I sat in some very fine what we’ll call field level seats in short left last Wednesday night, pretty comparable to where I was eight nights earlier at Shea. There is definitely something to be said for seats that are tilted toward home plate. There is also something to be said for sloping the steps in such a way that once somebody stands up in your midst (to buy a hot dog, to sell a beer, to mindlessly stare), you the seated are not blocked from the action. Mild-mannered Jeff rightly morphed into a bear as backs and shoulders and heads kept us from seeing a damn thing. Given the genuine obstacle to line of sight this non-action represented, I’m guessing getting up constantly is a cherished local tradition.

New rule: If you have a rookie pitcher setting the world on figurative fire [ed. note: nope, I didn’t foresee the emergence of Stephen Strasburg two years hence], stand and clap. If it’s the third inning and nothing’s going on but a 2-1 count, sit the fudge down. Perhaps the “tennis seating” decorum I’ve seen employed in other places (even Philadelphia), where you are momentarily kept from returning to your seat while baseball is in progress, should be de rigueur. Given the price of a ticket, you should be entitled to see as much of it as you (or Jeff) paid for.

Not that Nationals fans, even the one who lobbed a snide junkball about the high Met payroll (which explained why we won, according to him), struck me as rude. I’m not sure I saw a whole lot of Nationals fans, at least relative to the ton of outlanders who descended on Washington last week. If there is one tradition that trailed the Expos to their final resting spot, it was that we, as in the Metropolitan we, were everywhere. No tension because of the crowd composition, at least not from where I sat and craned. No booing of Mets by Mets fans for a change (we’re all in this together when we congregate elsewhere). No escalating drunken bravado on a Wednesday night à la what reports suggest has become the norm in certain slices of Citizens Bank. The Nats didn’t come close to selling out their eighth game ever in their new park and that was with a generous helping of us on board. As some have been known to suggest in the seat of government regarding other invasions, they should be greeting Mets fans with flowers and chocolates.

If they did, however, would they know where to find them? While Nationals Park did give lie to half of the old bromide that Washington is a city of southern efficiency and northern charm (I liked the line of golf-shirted greeters who profusely thanked us for coming), it doesn’t appear that all the kinks have been ironed out. Concessions still seemed a bit overwhelmed, even without an SRO audience. The dreaded taking of the bottlecap, which I thought was a Shea-only pre-emptive punishment, was exercised at one stand, but not at another. Uncertainty of how to work all the levers extended to more visible facets of the operation as well.

When Duaner Sanchez entered the game, the massive scoreboard identified him as UNKNOWN. Innings earlier, Angel Pagan, No. 16 on the Mets, was billed as Jay Payton, No. 16 on the Orioles — there was even a picture of our 2000 centerfielder in his Bird garb to complete the illusion that the Mets might win a pennant this year. (Payton was in the system, Jeff inferred, because the Nats played the O’s in an exhibition game, one of those dress rehearsals intended to, yup, iron the kinks out before the ballgames count.)

Anybody could make if not those mistakes then something like them. Shea was several decades old when its board ops declared Jason Phillips’ first Major League hit belonged to Vance Wilson. It was even older when it randomly assigned Pedro Martinez’s 3,000th strikeout a year ahead of time and to nobody in particular. At Shea, it’s quirky. At a brand new facility, it’s time for another run-through. For Citi Field, it’s a cautionary tale to really think through everything (like where to not mount a mile-high home plate camera), really test everything and really teach everybody how to use everything.

It’s perverse fun to nitpick — even Natpick — but there was a lot to like about the new place. It’s easy as hell to get to by Metro, which, in turn, is always easy as hell to navigate. Nationals Park is one block from the Navy Yard station which is already more efficiently coordinated after a game than the 44-year-old Willets Point-Shea Stadium stop. There are nice if not expansive nods to Washington baseball history around the main concourse and, let’s face it, there’s not all that much Washington baseball history to show off. The Nats even tip their caps to greats of the game from other cities (perhaps they understand much of their trade will come from elsewhere). Though you have to be pretty high up to notice the Capitol dome and such, the cherry blossoms planted above the outfield are a phenomenal District touch. Balls don’t seem to fly out of this joint any more than they did RFK, so the saplings are probably safe from falling objects.

The Nats skipped the bricks and the overwrought homages to a mythic baseball past. The clean, well-lighted, modern approach was refreshing even if red brick can serve as an effective Pavlovian cue to get fields-of-dreamy about one’s surroundings. You don’t always, however, need to be enveloped by a manufactured past. That said, there was something about Nationals Park that made it feel — and this isn’t intended to come out as derisive as it will — like a very nice and very large Grapefruit League park. It wasn’t sterile as much as not yet defined, not yet lived in. Maybe after eight games, it’s not supposed to be.

Nationals Park may not be the coziest bed & breakfast of ballparks, but it’s at least a reasonably functional Marriott. It’s very much worth a visit (though you should probably ante up for a reasonably functional Marriott if you’re staying over and eschew the Days Inn of Silver Spring, Md.; trust me on this one). The Mets will be back in August if it’s the Mets you want to see. I’d suggest seeing it before they sell the naming rights because, honestly, the best part of this particular ballpark relative to those I’ve visited in the past half-decade or so was the lack of a suffocating corporate presence. No kidding. I realized as I loped about before the game how nice it was to not be reminded every six feet that some great financial institution or fine American brewer was bringing me this baseball game.

That may sound like projected carping over World Class Citi Field, and maybe it is a little, but the way I noticed there was no corporation sponsoring everything is the way I used to notice when there was one. Know what I mean? It used to be strange to see a company name plastered all over the place. Now we accept it as a part of doing business like we accept so much of everything in this world. For a night, corporate naming rights weren’t a fact of ballpark life and it was a surprisingly welcome sight to not see.

As for trying to discern, pesky aesthetics aside, what our nights and days will be like as we edge closer to our new stage, you cross your fingers and you hold your heart that it will be worth the hype and worth the wait and worth the sacrifice of what many of us adore and are instinctively reluctant to let go. What will it be like when the new ballpark isn’t someone else’s, but ours? Duaner Sanchez’s mysterious D.C. identity notwithstanding, that is the great unknown.

In Excelsis Reyo

At 9:25 tonight, with two outs in the top of the eighth, Ruben Tejada on first and the Mets hanging on to a rickety-looking 5-4 lead, Jose Reyes stepped to the plate against the Indians’ Chris Perez.

Reyes slashed Perez’s first pitch to right-center on a vicious arc, past the marvelously named Shin-Soo Choo. Normally I’m inclined to say the triple is the most-exciting play in baseball, but let me amend that: A two-out triple with another burner on first is even better. Racing around the diamond separated by 100 feet or so, Tejada and Reyes looked like some insane inventor’s whirligig, or a gag from a Looney Tunes cartoon. Tejada streaked across the plate as Reyes dived into third, the ball arriving high and left for the less-marvelously named Jhonny Peralta. Safe! 6-4, Mets!

At 9:30, leading off the bottom of the eighth, Peralta grounded Elmer Dessens’ second pitch sharply to deep short. Reyes fielded it on the backhand and fired the ball as he sat hard on the ground, with Ike Davis making a nice scoop at first. One out.

At 9:31, Shelley Duncan smacked Dessens’ first pitch toward left-center. Reyes took one quick step towards third, lunged at shoulder height and snatched the ball back out of the air. Two out.

In six minutes, Reyes had driven the Indians faithful to distraction not once, not twice, but three times. He was like a kid tormenting a little brother with a ball on a string — nyaah-nyaah, Cleveland, no ya don’t. Now that the Mets have completed the sweep, I wouldn’t be surprised if several Indians wake up at 2:25 or 3:30 or 4:31 screaming that Reyes is the monster under the bed. His hands are clapping! His knees are churning! His smile is huge and bright and carnivorous! He is coming to get me!

Cleveland’s nightmare, our dream come true. We watched the Mets assemble in Port St. Lucie not expecting much from this season, but comforted that at least we’d have No. 7 out there wreaking havoc. Then came the astonishing news that the game’s most hyperkinetic player had been sentenced to stillness and silence, stuck with an infuriating rehab course of doing absolutely nothing. He returned to us in early April, apparently whole but just as apparently not himself: He was waving at balls out of the zone, popping up balls he’d once driven, edging tentatively away from first base, stumbling at shortstop. It was February for Jose on top of his endless layoff, while it was April for everybody else.

But gradually the rust fell away, chips and flakes shed until tonight there he was again, Jose Reyes at maximum velocity and supreme wattage. And in those six minutes, I remembered what I’d risked forgetting about him — that when Jose Reyes is playing baseball at the peak of his ability, watching him seems like more fun than any human being should be allowed to have. And if it’s that much fun watching Jose Reyes, can you imagine being Jose Reyes?

When Ordering a Screwdriver...

I’ve never ordered a screwdriver. Never had one ordered for me. Never mixed one unless you count a fifth-grade Monday morning science fair when I got desperate for a topic the night before and decided my topic would be Mixology, the science of matching drink recipes to astrological signs. I got that from a Southern Comfort advertising supplement in the Sunday News aimed at selling more booze. It sounded like science to me, however, so I poured a bit of vodka and a bit of orange juice (per the Mixology supplement) into an empty pill bottle and declared it my science project.

What happens when a fifth-grader shows up to school with a little, tiny screwdriver and a poorly constructed Mixology wheel that involved awkwardly cut posterboard and some scrawling regarding what Leos, Scorpios and Sagittariuns should (should) drink to maximize their happiness and attractiveness? Nothing good, I assure you. Even in 1974, this wasn’t really an accepted science, though my flustered science teacher passed me because, I assume, it was just easier that way.

There was a bottle of vodka stashed behind the Log Cabin maple syrup in a kitchen cabinet above the closet where we kept the Pop-Tarts and paper napkins. I didn’t know what vodka was specifically. My parents didn’t drink all that much. Mostly our liquor was kept around for parties, of which we had few. Without the Mixology supplement from the paper, I wouldn’t have known a screwdriver from a rusty nail. But it did get me through one simple school assignment that came to be daunting the longer I put it off.

My mother liked to tell me I did that: put off the things I didn’t want to work on, and that I only liked to do the things that interested me. She was right. I can’t believe that was uncommon for 11-year-olds now or then. So one of her pieces of advice was Tackle the unpleasant tasks first.

Fair enough. I will tell you that the reason I’m mentioning screwdrivers and science projects and meandering a bit is today is the twentieth anniversary of my mother’s passing. But I don’t want this to be about unpleasantness. Too much of my relationship with her was exactly that, so I thought I’d take the time and use this platform, if you don’t mind, to recall a few other things she advised me beyond the routine (like “look both ways before crossing the street”) and the toxic (like “stay with your own kind,” and I don’t think she meant that in terms of baseball fans).

Don’t rest on your laurels. This was usually mentioned when I got a B in the marking period after an A or an 80 the test after I got a 90. I didn’t want to tackle unpleasant tasks and I didn’t see any point in breaking new ground in grades. There were no laurels to rest on when it came to my Mixology project.

Carry a raincoat. This was less about weather than appearance. If I had a professional appointment, I should have my trench coat handy, no matter that it was sunny outside, so when I arrived, I’d have something on my arm. Thus, the receptionist could “take my coat” which my mother considered an essential social transaction. I have no idea why this was going to puff up my aura in any given scenario, but the London Fog people would have loved her.

Keep a five-dollar bill in your shoe. This was the deluxe version of keep a dime in your shoe for an emergency phone call. I guess pickpockets would never go for your feet. She was big on this when I went to my first Mets game on my own when I was 14, preaching it to both of my friends who accompanied me to Shea. One of them assured me he had five dollars in his shoe. My mother could have that effect on people. I’m surprised he didn’t use the dime in his other shoe to call her and check which shoe should have which.

Don’t be snide. This wasn’t all-purpose advice, just a one-off. I don’t remember what I said to generate it. But I imagine it really was quite snide.

Oy, don’t bring in Sisk here. That was more for Davey Johnson than it was for me. Mom had a funny conception of how bullpens worked. Regardless of whether it was Ron Darling or Ed Lynch or Sid Fernandez starting, she’d ask as the game began, “Who’s backing him up tonight?” She was convinced each starter had a reliever designated as first out of the pen to clean up his mess. She never asked that when Doc was pitching because Doc didn’t need any help. I tried to explain it’s a matter of situations, that we won’t know who will come in in advance, that it depends on innings and lefties and righties and so forth. But she’d always ask. And she never wanted to see Doug Sisk.

Flap your arms if you’re drowning. She swore it worked for her once. I’ve pretty much avoided swimming for the last thirty years, but I’ve never forgotten what to do when I get back in the water and things go inevitably awry.

Practice your piano. I was subjected to three years of piano lessons. I didn’t ask for them, but there they were. Never got the hang of playing with two hands, however. Could do a mean right-handed version of “Saturday In The Park” after a while, but that was it. Yet it was important that I practice. Why? Not to build character. Not to open up a new line of work for me (I wasn’t envisioned, for all my practice, practice, practice, getting to Carnegie Hall). But because — and this wasn’t a matter of maybe — when I got older, I’d go to parties and would be the life of them because there’d be a piano, and I would play and everybody would be drinking and having a good time, with me and my playing the root cause of their joy.

This has never happened. Never. I don’t much care for parties and I haven’t been to one that involved a piano in ages. I’ve yet to meet anybody who lit up a room by playing a piano. I imagine somebody who could mix a good screwdriver would be more appreciated.

Which brings me to my favorite piece of advice my mother gave me. It was from the summer between my freshman and sophomore years in college. I was 19, feeling vaguely adult for the first time (for the record, 28 years later, I still feel vaguely adult). Mom and I are in the car, going somewhere I’m assuming I didn’t want to go, talking about something I’m assuming I just as soon would have preferred to avoid. I’m an adult now. I don’t want to be in the car with my mother. But here I am, just as I’ve always been, and she asks another in a long line of questions I don’t particularly want to answer.

“Have you tried drinking?”

She meant alcohol, like the kind we used to keep in the kitchen cabinet for those parties that allegedly featured loads of merry piano-playing. (Come to think of it, the same bottles from when I was in fifth grade were probably still stashed up there behind the Log Cabin and above the Pop-Tarts and paper napkins.) Since I was of legal drinking age, this wasn’t necessarily an old-fashioned gotcha! question. I was 19. That was old enough to drink in 1982. So I said yes, a little.

And I braced. I braced for a lecture on the evils of overconsumption. I braced for a Captain Obvious speech about drinking and driving. I braced for being warned that I’d be led astray by those who were not my kind getting me drunk and poaching the five-dollar bill from my shoe while I lay passed out on the floor, left only with my respectable raincoat and, if I was lucky, the dime in my other shoe.

But that wasn’t where she was going. This was:

“Let me tell you something. If you’re ever out somewhere and you order a screwdriver and they say they’re out of orange juice, don’t have it with grapefruit juice. I tried it once, and it was terrible.”

That was it. And while I’ve yet to order a screwdriver, you can bet the last five-dollar bill in your shoe that I will not accept one should some crafty bartender — who clearly lacks proper Mixology credentials because he doesn’t even bother to consult my star chart — attempt to slip grapefruit juice into my pristine vodka.

Besides, that’s not a screwdriver. That’s a vodka greyhound.

Pleasantly Warm in Cleveland

I was checking my trusty 2010 Mets pocket schedule and every single last one of the boxes — be it orange, bronze, silver, gold, platinum or road gray — indicates we play OPP. Naughty By Nature notwithstanding, that’s shorthand for Opponent. I don’t care if everybody else’s 2010 Mets pocket schedule says we’re following BAL by playing CLE, or that both prominently feature L in their abbreviation scheme. The point is the Mets play who they play, and since last Thursday when Jon Niese one-hit SD, they’ve been compelled to collect WWW after WWW. We’ll take ’em as they deal ’em.

If we didn’t, we’d be the first team in the history of this grand game (give or take a few crooked Eight Men Out types) to refuse wins we earned. And make no mistake, we earned ours Wednesday night at Progressive Field, even if the earning was simply a matter of handing Mitch Talbot a baseball and our hitting it to various of his teammates who wore, as they used to say of Michael Jackson, one glove for no apparent reason.

The Indians appear to be a supbar baseball team, which is to say they’re better than the Orioles and worse than almost everybody else. Both teams are OPP to us, however. That’s who we are to everybody we play. Last year we were desperately subpar. I don’t recall any of the teams who beat up on NYM in 2009 filing a protest with the commissioner’s office that outscoring the Mets wasn’t worthy of a W or three.

Got an issue with the caliber of the competition? That’s a different OPP: Other People’s Problems.

Yet here I sit, hours after watching the Mets remain pleasantly warm in Cleveland, attempting to come to grips with the notion that we’re hot. Of course we’re hot. We’ve won six in a row, ten of eleven, 17 of 22. You don’t need Paris Hilton to tell you that’s hot. Yet…

Could it be real? Could the Mets really be this good? These Mets over whom we doomed and gloomed all winter and during every previous road trip, including the one directly prior to the current expedition? Or is it just circumstantial, a matter of playing the dreadful Orioles and lousy Indians after a 5-1 homestand which itself only proved so much because we almost always win at home (as if that was pre-ordained)?

How did Angel Pagan become a heads-up baseball player? When did Jeff Francoeur turn into a generally liability-free batter? How has Jason Bay managed to not produce all that much yet seem reasonably productive? Why is it not nonsenscial to suggest Rod Barajas is an All-Star? Whatever happened to that solemn post I came thisclose to writing less than a month ago about bracing for the day we might have to move on from one or both of David Wright and Jose Reyes? Why don’t Ike Davis and Ruben Tejada seem like rookies? And when did Jon Niese become Jon Matlack?

This has been a fun trip to Baltimore and Cleveland. The five wins in five tries have been fun, but more than that, it’s been the height of fun to realize we are so much better than other teams, even these other teams to this point. We’re nine games over .500. Even if it’s based on beating up on teams that are, respectively, struggling under .400 and .300, it’s still lofty territory for a franchise whose final winning percentage last year was a scuffling .432. The O’s and the Tribe are on the schedule, right? It’s when you don’t beat teams like that enough that you become one of them.

It wasn’t so long ago we took the ability of the Mets to lord it over lousy teams as implicit. For three recent seasons we were indisputably one of the better clubs in baseball. We expected to beat teams like these Orioles and these Indians. It was when we didn’t that it was Angst City all night long. Now we beat them, and we beat OPP 17 of 22 times, and it doesn’t quite feel real. Yet the standings say it is. Maybe “real” isn’t the word I seek. Is “legitimate”? Well, the games aren’t fixed, so yeah, it’s legit. Will the Mets cruise less when they play a markedly better brand of OPP, which they’ll be doing beginning Friday and continuing to do for several weeks?

I guess we’ll see. I didn’t see 5-0 on the road, 10-1 since we looked significantly shy of par in Milwaukee and San Diego and 17-5 overall. I didn’t see 37-28 after 65 games, certainly not after the season began with tangible doses of Gary Matthews, Jr., Mike Jacobs and Frank Catalanotto, to say nothing of getting almost nothing from John Maine and less than nothing from Oliver Perez. The 2009 Mets peaked at seven games over .500, and even when they sat briefly at that high water mark, I didn’t believe they were that good. The 2010 Mets are nine games over .500 for the first time and I have no idea how good they could be.

Per the Field formerly known as Jacobs, that’s a happily progressive way of viewing the world when we WIN.