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.

Carlos Beltran, King of the Hill

A man built a park

A man built a field

A man said quirky!

Is what I'll yield

I'll make one wall close

Make one wall far

I'll make another wall stand

Behind something bizarre

Gonna have a hill

Gonna put it where?

Puttin' it in center

Way the hell out there

Nobody digs it

Everyone complains

But at least there's a roof

In the event it rains

Two teams played a game

Two teams played forever

What time would they finish?

The teams said “whenever”

Cut to the chase

Get to the point

Arrive in the fourteenth

A victor to anoint

Lamb on first

Burke on third

Joe Smith on the mound

Now isn't this absurd?

Houston had Scott

I've heard that before

They once had a Scott

From the hardware store

Not that Scott

It wasn't Mike

But with first and third

What was there to like?

One out was needed

To keep things tied

When Luke Scott connected

We nearly died

His ball is long

His ball is deep

His ball might end it

That Houston creep

Wait just a minute!

Wait just a sec!

His ball is headed

To that pain in the neck

It's heading for the hill

It's heading there now

It's gonna take a miracle

Scott can take a bow

The hill is quirky

The hill is high

I suspect the same

Of the architect guy

It's a Crosley tribute?

Unique incline?

The rest of us think

It's just asinine

Nobody could catch up

Nobody could hope

Unless Carlos Beltran

Was workin' his lope

Carlos ran long

Carlos ran deep

Carlos kept climbing

Carlos went steep

He lunged and he grabbed

He secured it and soon

He fell and held on

Like he was Al Toon

The Astros were stopped

At the one-foot line

Wanna play some more?

The Mets said “fine”

Minute Maid Park

Is truly the pits

I mean can you believe

Where that silly hill sits?

But hitting it to Beltran

Is your mistake

Boo him all you want

Go jump in the lake

He drove in the winner

The 'pen did the rest

Tal's Hill is the worst

That catch was the best!

Can Willie Bench Everybody?

Yes, Jose Reyes should run out all ground balls, all fly balls, all fair balls, all foul balls. Yes, Willie Randolph should slap even his superstars on the wrist and nail their buttocks to the bench when they fail to put one foot in front of the other. Good character-building exercise there in the eighth. Randolph was firm afterwards and Reyes — steaming and snorting in the dugout to the point where I was worrying for his (and our) future — was genuinely contrite.

If we are to assume that Reyes will hustle, take nothing for granted and live up to his manager's work ethic…and if we are to continue to assume that if Jose Reyes can take a one-inning benching, his teammates can receive the same message, then we can ultimately assume our Mets will conduct themselves like professionals.

'Cause they're sure playing like a bunch of goddamn amateurs lately.

All hail Wandy Rodriguez and take nothing away from his Friday night, but wow have the Mets forgotten how to do everything again. Mike Pelfrey's progress is absolutely snailish and painful to sit through. In another era he'd be just now reaching Binghamton since this is only his second professional season. Come to think of it, why is he pitching in the bigs already? Oh. Right. Everybody's injured.

This was Pelf's best start of the season and it was still a grim scene, baby. Young Michael has almost never shown any proclivity for escaping a jam unscathed, certainly not more than one in any game. Maybe Rodriguez wasn't going to be bested, but you gotta hang tougher than Pelfrey does. I'm trying to remember he's a child, he's a neophyte, he has talent. But my patience a thin commodity this week.

As for the Mets' offense, Reyes' barely fair tapper (even Mike Lamb seemed surprised it wasn't called foul, practically walking the ball to first as if he thought Larry Vanover might want it back) was one of the better hit balls of the night. Maybe Jose didn't run because he didn't believe the magic Wandy would give up even a 45-footer to anybody in a NEW YORK uniform. One double, three singles, one walk, all registered in different innings was the extent of our production. Easley's slide to break up a DP was the best thing I saw all evening.

Just as well Jose lollygagged. If he had taken off for first in the eighth, there'd be nothing to remember from this game at all.

Here's wishing a helluva lot more luck to our friend Dan Ziegler, Lone Star Met himself, who's going to be taking in the final two games of this series up close and personal. His guide to watching the Mets at Minute Maid Park is a must-read. We can only hope what he's driving east from the Metroplex to witness is must-see.

To Confirm, It's Not for Ron Hodges

dennisjrpark

NostraDennis recently turned NostraDaytona, visiting Jackie Robinson Ball Park in the Florida State League, taking care to represent No. 42 via the Faith and Fear t-shirt. Quantum Distributors hasn’t abandoned its post; it’s just a rainout. Thus, Dennis couldn’t see his St. Lucie Mets take on the Daytona Cubs, but he could show off his numerical pride. And that we appreciate.

Treasure This Season, Gang

When their season began, they were nobody. When it ended, they were somebody. If it’s the first Friday of the month, then we’re remembering them in this special 1997 Mets edition of Flashback Friday.

Ten years, seven Fridays. This is one of them.

Woven deep into the legend of the 1969 Mets is the story of 18-18. That’s the record the Mets reached after 36 games: .500, a percentage theretofore unapproached by any Mets squad. The version I’ve read many times goes something like this: Beat reporters race into the clubhouse to check out the wild celebration and find Gil Hodges’ young men quietly going about their business. Tom Seaver speaks up and says there’s nothing special about .500, we’re serious about winning. The wise old heads chuckle at the rascal’s impudence…doesn’t he know the Mets should be thrilled to have won as many games as they have lost?

The Mets go out and lose five straight. Ha-ha, indeed. But then they set a standard that three Mets teams have matched but none has ever exceeded: They win eleven consecutive games. They’re 29-23 and as the season proceeds, new and more rewarding milestones make themselves apparent. Finishing at .500, after smashing through that statistical barrier, would have seemed pretty disappointing.

1997 wasn’t 1969. It wasn’t even 1984, when the franchise, mired in futility after seven years of lean, shocked the baseball universe and rode a winning record into summer and first place throughout July. It was a giddy season — even the wave didn’t seem so bad — though not as giddy as it could have been had the Mets persevered through August and done what their ’69 forebears had done, namely shove the Cubs deep into second. Once the ’84 Mets slid out of first, runner-up status, an unimaginable high coming off the misery of 1977-1983, was a downer.

If 1969 was the Tiffany’s of surprise seasons and 1984 was a discounted, Wal*Mart version of 1969, then what was 1997? Thrift shop? Garage sale? eBay BUY IT NOW for 99 cents? What do you do with a season in which it’s obvious you’re going to be a lot better than you thought you could be but signs keep creeping in that you’re not quite as good as you’re going to need to be to fulfill your wilder dreams?

All you can do is root your ass off. You don’t even bother, while it’s in progress, with the possibility that it isn’t 1969 even though by July you have yet to fly as high in the standings as you did in 1984. The Mets were exceeding expectations left and right in 1997, but it wasn’t necessarily getting them far in tangible terms. Worse, a little slip could make all your first-half progress and your competitive currency melt right down the drain. The ’69 Mets went all the way. The ’84 Mets remained viable into September. Would the ’97 Mets, with those two blessed memories serving as franchise precedent, live up to their possibilities? Without a Tom Seaver? Without a Dwight Gooden?

With Bobby Jones as their ace?

The heights, occupied by the Braves and, in still-fresh Wild Card terms, the Marlins, eluded them but so did the depths of the Dallas Green era. When the season began, I would have been thrilled by 81 or 82 wins. By the middle of the year, I wanted so much more.

***

Our semi-charmed kind of life appeared in a degree of danger after the six-game winning streak that stamped us for real ended in late June. I began to dream big, really big, when we faced the Braves in a Shea series finale. We were sending bona fide All-Star Bobby Jones (12-3, 2.29) to the hill against Tom Glavine. We were not just breathing down the Marlins’ neck, but we were four out of first. Imagine sweeping Atlanta. Imagine zooming past Florida and taking on the perennial division champs. Imagine the Braves, who couldn’t do us the solid of solids the previous October and win the 1996 World Series, spiraling to obscurity at the hands of a real New York team.

But Bobby Jones let us down. Couldn’t get out of the fifth. The Braves scored in six of the first seven innings. We lost 14-7 and it wasn’t nearly that close. The Mets never came within five games of first place again in 1997.

It was off to Pittsburgh where we took two of three (though Rick Reed, who had shocked everybody for so long, looked abysmal against his old club in one of the wins) and then Detroit for what would become an infamous Interleague series. We dropped three straight in Tiger Stadium by a combined score 31-13. Mark Clark, Dave Mlicki and Jones were all slapped around mercilessly. The Mets came home to face their Wild Card competition, the Marlins for a four-game holiday set and the misery continued. Armando Reynoso couldn’t last two innings in the opener. We were down 8-0 before the second was done.

Were we done as well? The Mets were seven games over .500, 45-38, theoretical cause for celebration on some level, but suddenly five behind the Marlins for playoff positioning. We had given back everything we gained after the Subway Series.

***

But the 1997 Mets would not go down that easily. Three July games remained against the Marlins, critical games. Hard as it may be to believe, the Marlins were a powerhouse that year like they’ve never been in any other year (even the ’03 world champs had to sneak up on people well into September). Those Marlins were Wayne Huizenga’s grand experiment. I’ll spend a zillion bucks putting together a contender, went his reasoning, and if that draws fickle Floridians to my football stadium, then I’m onto something. If not, I’m outta here.

His evil scheme worked on the field, more or less. Though the Fish couldn’t stay with the Braves, they were clearly the class of the Wild Card division: Gary Sheffield, Moises Alou, a not altogether decrepit Bobby Bonilla led the offense; Charles Johnson was a state-of-the-art catcher; young Edgar Renteria was a phenom; the pitching, led by Kevin Brown, Al Leiter and closer Robb Nen, was hot stuff. This was a Marlin team built to win now, not yet slated to be torn apart five minutes later. The Mets? The Mets were still a mélange of yesterday’s heroes, last-chancers and unknown quantities. We were the underdogs in this race. The Marlins — the Marlins! — were the decided overcats.

But the 1997 Marlins were knocked for a loop by the 1997 Mets, living up to our heightened expectations after hinting they’d be returning to Earth any minute now. The Mets of ’97 weren’t the rag-armed bunch that was banged around for 14 (yes, 14) Tiger dingers in Detroit. Instead, they were a team that wasn’t about to say die to something as synthetically nouveau-riche as the Florida Marlins.

Friday night, July 4: Another Bobby Valentine special materializes. Todd Pratt, an obscure backup catcher who had left baseball to manage a Domino’s, delivered in 30 minutes or less, homering in his first Met plate appearance. His two-run job off Leiter tied matters at two. Reed did the rest, gutting the Fish and Jim Leyland, the manager who never gave him much of a chance in Pittsburgh. Lidle and McMichael complete the 6-2 Met win.

Saturday afternoon, July 5: Workaday Mark Clark and three relievers defeat another shiny Marlin free agent, Alex Fernandez. Alfonzo homers. Baerga homers. Mets win 5-3.

Sunday afternoon, July 6: Stephanie and I are at this game, the last one before the All-Star break. I’m not sure if the Marlins know this was a showdown, but we do. Car parked under the Northern Boulevard overpass for the only time I can remember (no ticket) and heads fortified by giveaway Kansas City Monarchs caps on yet another Jackie Robinson appreciation day, we grow tense as Jones and Pat Rapp battle into the seventh. Jones allows Charles Johnson an RBI double to make it 2-1 Marlins. But Alfonzo (we have begun calling him Fonzie) doubles home Lance Johnson in the bottom of the inning. The game moves into extras, into the twelfth. Dave Rosenbaum, in If They Don’t Win, It’s A Shame: The Year the Marlins Bought the World Series, picks up the action as the Mets come to bat:

First, Gary Sheffield lost the ball in the sun. He twisted and turned his body, trying to make the sun go away, but it wouldn’t, and Alex Ochoa’s popup struck the heel of his glove and fell to ground. Ochoa ended up at second. The next batter [Carl Everett] grounded a single into rightfield. Sheffield approached the ball with slightly more speed than he had recently mustered in jogging out infield grounders, which wasn’t much. His one concession to expediency was bending over to pick up the ball bare-handed, but that didn’t work, either. The ball dropped out of his right hand, and by the time he bent over to pick it up again, Ochoa was only thirty feet from home plate and closing fast with the winning run.

Sheffield knew there was no use throwing. He completed a day in which he had gone hitless in five at-bats by dropping his shoulders and trudging off the field. The Marlins had lost, 3-2, in twelve innings, their third straight defeat by the Mets, and no player was more at fault than Sheffield.

Indeed, I remember the play unfolding in slow motion, pinching myself a little to realize Alex Ochoa was going to score the winning run in a big game, to realize the recently stumbling Mets had righted themselves quickly and taken three consecutive decisions from the mighty Marlins, to realize that a little more than nine months since finishing a season 71-91 we were entering the 1997 All-Star break a mere 2 GAMES from the Wild Card spot. One year earlier, a great closing rush in the first half had put the 1996 Mets five games under and eight behind the Expos for second — an Ochoa throw of a prayer from contention — and I was delirious by dint of that much. So for a Mets team to actually compete for the playoffs…

I mean we were 2 GAMES out!

***

The All-Star Game in Cleveland flew by. Todd Hundley begged off with an injury, but Jones made us proud by striking out Seattle’s Griffey and Oakland’s McGwire, both challenging Roger Maris’ unbreakable home run record. The A.L. won for the first time since 1993, Sandy Alomar the MVP, but I was just counting the hours ’til Thursday and the excitement of an impending four-game rematch with the Braves in their new home, Turner Field.

On their inaugural trip in, the Ted would treat the Mets well.

***

In 1997, it doesn’t seem strange. Even as the Braves have resurrected themselves from their ’80s malaise and the Mets have been, well, the Mets, we are 20-18 versus them since 1994. We have no reason to fear this stadium.

Sure enough, Thursday night in Atlanta tilts New York’s way as we dent John Smoltz and destroy Bobby Cox’s bullpen. Three ninth-inning runs, keyed by the suddenly undisabled Manny Alexander’s triple, secures a 10-7 triumph.

Friday night is similar. The Mets persevere against Tom Glavine, erasing a 5-1 deficit with four in the sixth and four more in the eighth. Todd Pratt scores three runs but wins few friends when his bat flies out of his sweaty hands and into the Turner crowd once too often. Manny Alexander collects two more hits and three RBI. Manny had been injured, now he’s fine. Manny, to paraphrase Shawn Colvin’s ubiquitous FM phrasing, came home with a vengeance. Mets win 9-7.

Saturday the Mets jump out to a 3-0 lead on Greg Maddux (Gilkey and Ordoñez with RBI singles, Eddie Perez with an error) but Mark Clark can’t hold it. Mets eventually lose 7-4, but the New Yorkers have just hung tough with three Cy Young award winners. Their reward is a date on Sunday Night Baseball and the alleged soft spot in the Atlanta rotation, Denny Neagle.

A nationwide audience must wonder what the fuss is over Bobby Jones. He cracks for six earned runs in the first. But y’know what? Valentine leaves him in and Jones rewards him and us with six shutout innings. In the meantime, Butch Huskey nails Neagle for a two-run, then a three-run homer. Neagle would grumble about retaliation afterwards, but forget about him. Suddenly, the Mets are back in it. It’s 6-5 in the fourth. In the fifth, an Alexander double and an error on a John Olerud ground ball make it 6-6. It stays that way through regulation. In the tenth, Ochoa, fifth outfielder on the resurgent Mets, takes Mike Bielecki deep, very deep, with two out. John Franco works around a leadoff single to Andruw Jones, a wild pitch and a walk to save it for ex-Brave Greg McMichael.

The Mets have marched into Georgia and taken over Turner Field. It’s apparent love at first sight, three of four in the new ballpark. Maybe we’ll hold a whammy over them there. The Mets are 51-39 at the end of the night, 1-1/2 behind Florida. It’s no wonder that when Joe Benigno begins his overnight show on WFAN after Mets Extra, he declares the Mets are bound for postseason baseball in 1997. I don’t call in, but I don’t rhetorically argue either.

***

Of course it’s not that easy. It never is. After taking the measure of their statistical betters, six of seven against the Marlins and Braves, the Mets piss away three straight against the pitiful Pirates and crappy Cubs. They nearly blow a fourth until Huskey singles home Alfonzo to pull out a 4-3 win in the tenth over Chicago at Shea. Gilkey contributes a sixth-inning homer but his batting average continues to dial Manhattan. It is .212. “What’s wrong with Gilkey?” is as much a question surrounding this team as “how about them Mets?”

Another weekend is at hand. Another four-game set. The last-place Reds are in. It rains a lot Friday night, but with the schedule already rather wonky (there are more two-game series this year than in any other, reportedly an excuse for Bud Selig to execute league-blurring realignment), all concerned wait. A ferocious thunderstorm clears the field after two. Joe Crawford, yet another Valentine discovery from nowhere, takes over for Jones in the third and goes four-and-a-third for his first win.

Saturday is sunny and bright, especially for Rick Reed who homers off Pete Schourek and retires the Reds with relative ease for eight innings. Gilkey, calling friends and family in Philly (.215), settles matters with a three-run shot in the eighth.

Sunday is a laugher: 10-1. Two homers for Hundley. Another for Bernard, who leaves traditional area code territory behind at last, his average up to a hard-earned .221. Lance Johnson, like Hundley and Gilkey, a shining light from the dim year before, re-emerges with two hits. Dave Mlicki, seven strong, gives way to Takashi Kashiwada and Cory Lidle. The final is 10-1. My friend Joe, next to me in the field boxes, is angry the Mets couldn’t give him a shutout to ink in his everpresent scorebook. In a rare moment of candor between us, I giggle at his ire: You only root at one speed, don’t you? Joe returns the chuckle. He likes that description of himself.

On the other side of the ledger, our old hero Ray Knight is in trouble as Cincy’s manager. He’ll be fired within the week. His leftfielder Deion Sanders, booed all weekend for being Deion Sanders, takes a moment out of packing for Cowboy training camp to play the piety card. He says he’s going to pray for us Mets fans and our troubled souls. He calls Shea a sad place.

No, actually it’s quite joyous, and its mood only improves in the finale Monday afternoon. Everett’s eighth-inning homer with Olerud aboard gives the Mets a 5-3 lead. John Franco — brace yourself — pitches a 1-2-3 ninth. The Mets sweep. They have climbed to a season-high 14 games over .500. They haven’t been this many above the break-even point since July 1991, just before they fell apart for the balance of the decade. They’re a silly millimeter behind the Marlins for that gleaming Wild Card, just a half-game’s difference between us.

***

With Cincinnati swept, I was more than jubilant. I was reflective. On that July 21, with the Mets 56-42, I wrote something that I posted to an AOL Mets board I then frequented. I printed it out and I saved it. It went something like this:

I hereby interrupt the wild card chase to get Met-aphysical.

The year is 2005 or 2010 or 2020. Maybe the Mets aren’t doing so well in Conference “A”. Maybe they’ve just lost a doubleheader to Charlotte or Monterrey. Maybe Edgardo Alfonzo is breaking Paul Molitor’s hit record in another uniform. Or Todd Hundley has just gotten another player’s name wrong in the booth. Whatever. I guarantee that each and every one of you, if you’re anything like me when it comes to this team, will be warmed by the thought of the 1997 Mets.

Depending on your age, you know what the mere mention of “1969” or “1986” and maybe another year or two you hold dear do to you. 1997 will do the same.

Seasons of love. They are rare.

You will feel goosebumps the next time a down-in-the-dumps franchise you root for, trashed by arrogance, bad drafting and shortsighted trades, makes its turnaround. You will feel this way because you’ll remember the summer of 1997 when a team picked to do absolutely nothing won game after game after game in astounding fashion, picking off the league bullies and taking care of the doormats.

Treasure this season, gang. They don’t come along very often. ’69. ’84. ’97. Three times in 36 years have we (or, perhaps, our slightly older siblings) gotten the feeling that there is justice, there is fairness, there is relief for those who live and mostly die with a bad baseball team.

In typical worrisome fashion, I’m already slightly dreading 1998. No matter what happens this year, next year can’t possibly top it for the element of pleasant surprise. I don’t know if the next 64 games can keep pace with the previous 86 (the season truly started on Jackie Robinson Night).

Having shown up just in time to figure out why we were the Miracle Mets, I looked at all those 50-112 seasons in the team history section of my “World Champions” baseball card and, as a kid, I just figured that would never happen again. Imagine my shock when 1977-1983 came along.

Then, all at once, they started playing well in 1984, better in 1985, the best in 1986. The malaise was over for good. Imagine my shock when 1991-1996 came along.

History is giving us a third chance. I don’t know if we’ll cash in this October, or two Octobers from now or any October. But I damn sure want to savor every line drive and backhanded catch and improbable bleeping win.

Is this a great time or what?

***

Time didn’t prove me much of a prophet. I sense I’m mostly alone in treasuring that season, in holding 1997 up to 1969 and 1984 and seeing a spiritual triplet. I don’t know if anybody else gathers goosebumps at the mention of the names and games I’ve dug up here. I don’t know how many others who have been live-and-die Mets fans since they were old enough to know better can reach back and feel what I felt then and feel still. I may have been wrong that 1997 would stand forever as an iconic Met season, but I stand by the emotion of every word of what I wrote 10 years ago this month.

For giving me back my team as a serious entity, for making me care every night for six months, for granting me a baseball rebirth at the age of 34, for competing with the best of them, and for finally, finally, finally putting measurably more wins than losses next to our name in the standings, 1997 was, more than any other, I believe, my season of pure, unadulterated Met love. It wasn’t the last year in which nothing was expected of the Mets, but I think it was the last time shaping up as nothing special seemed not a crime in this market. We were just so used to it. That the Mets would go out and shatter all their low expectations and establish themselves as a legitimate contender for that year and the years to follow…

…that was awfully nice of them.

***

A killer road trip to all three California outposts plus Houston awaited, a challenge the Mets tackled with élan, at least for a while. On a Friday night in the middle of it, we rose to 16 above .500, as high as we’d get in 1997. The next afternoon, the Marlins would lose to the Cardinals, dropping them 15 above. For several hours, before playing the Padres on Saturday night July 26, we led the Wild Card race. I happened to be over at my sister’s just after learning the Florida score. I was as thrilled as she was clueless.

“If the season ended right now,” I explained to Suzan, “the Mets would be in the playoffs.”

“Oh,” she said, trying to be empathetic or sympathetic or something other than apathetic. “Then I wish the season would end right now.”

I didn’t. Even knowing what I know, I still don’t.

Next Friday: First-time, long-time.

***

And don’t go anywhere during the break. While some Mets go to San Francisco and others go home, Faith and Fear stays true to its mission, giving you baseball to read about on those treacherous off-days…because that’s what we do.

We Live in Interesting Times

Does the hamate bone exist for any reason except to sideline baseball players? Holy Benny Agbayani — how many outfielders can one playoff contender lose and still stay upright? With Carlos Gomez lost until September, I had to remind myself not to look askance at Ricky Ledee. Because if not him, who? The Mets were obviously thinking the same thing, hastily bringing back David Newhan and dispatching Lastings Milledge to play anywhere — Binghamton, Cooperstown, a rap studio, an argyle-sweater factory — where he could get some quick at-bats. With Moises Alou still trapped in the Quad Zone, perhaps Lastings will get the extended audition fate denied him repeatedly after all. If the Mets' line of outfield succession was like that of the presidency, Lastings would be the Secretary of Labor. But looks like he'll make the Oval Office — I mean, left field — anyway.

This week I keep missing the beginning of games, which means I've been missing the only part one would want to see. It's strange to see your team is up 2-0 and mutter obscenities. Fortunately, neither Reyes nor Delgado nor Castro nor Beltran nor the reluctantly accepted Ledee were done. Neither was John Maine, who pitched like he was hurling a gauntlet down before Roy Oswalt. I can strike people out too, All-Star. I've got 10 wins, All-Star. What are you going to do, All-Star? (By the way, with Smoltz 86'ed the Braves somehow have just one All-Star.)

Oliver on the shelf. Sosa on the shelf. Alou still on the shelf. Gomez on the shelf. Lastings trying to get off the shelf. The reconstructed, glued-back-together Pedro not yet ready for picking up from the shelf. Yes sirree, we live in interesting times.

Die Hard and Like It

If you can remember all the way back to May 17 (as in 17 runs surrendered), the Mets scored five runs in the ninth inning against the Cubs to secure a most unlikely 6-5 victory at Shea. I was at that game, endured eight mediocre innings and almost left. Almost. Instead, I changed seats and was treated to what stands as the in-person comeback of a lifetime. I came home and divined one lesson of many from that afternoon was “play the full nine, stay the full nine.”

I haven’t been particularly reliable about taking in first pitches lately, but I’m almost always around for the end, whether at Shea or on the couch. This week’s three-night Festival of Humidor Destruction has adhered to that pattern. I seemed to miss the competitive portions, a.k.a. the first innings, Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, but once it became apparent that these games had become follies, I hung in there to watch them become history.

The Fourth of July followed the examples set on the Second and Third. We were deep into our 17th (as in 17 runs surrendered, it bears repeating) annual viewing of 1776 (as in 17 runs surrendered, it bears repeating yet again) when the Mets and Rockies began to get it on at Coors. As is tradition, I forego baseball and everything else for this movie. Thus, the Mets had to start without me — not a bad deal for them as they jumped to a 3-0 lead in my absence. David Wright belted a home run, inspired no doubt by John Adams’ words when he recruited Thomas Jefferson to serve on the Declaration of Independence committee:

This business needs a Virginian.

The same could be said for our tattered rotation and John Maine’s upcoming turn in it, but as ever, I digress. We paused the disc once or twice to monitor doings in Denver, unfazed by an early 3-3 score. We weren’t winning, but at least we weren’t losing. It’s effing Colorado, after all; 3-3 in the third is no more definitive than 3-3 in the NBA. Once our DVD was over (spoiler alert: we’re not British), Stephanie called me upstairs to peer out the bathroom window, our best southern exposure. We had a panoramic look at no fewer than nine different fireworks displays, sanctioned or otherwise. No Aaron Copland accompaniment, but no crowds either. Nice show.

Twenty minutes of peering complete, I head back downstairs. It’s the bottom of the fifth. We’re losing 7-4, a runner’s on first. Discouraging, but not devastating. It’s still Colorado unless they’ve moved it. Plus, there were two outs. Mota’s pitching. He gives up a foul grounder. Oh wait, it’s called fair for some strange reason. First and second. Then Matsui pokes one between Delgado and Valentin. Thought one of ’em could get it. 8-4. Damn. Ball in the hole to Reyes. He can get the runner. No, Holliday beats it out.

And that appeared to be the best part of the game I would see. In a matter of seconds it would be 12-4 and a few minutes later it would be 15-5 and they told two friends and they scored two runs and so on and so on and so on.

Anyway, through eight the Mets were losing 17 to 6, giving me some morbid consolation that it was an appropriate score on a day when we commemorate 1776. But then the ninth rolled around and reminded me why I like baseball so much.

Three things:

1) Paul Lo Duca led off and saw 14 pitches before grounding out to third. Down eleven runs, he worked the count to 3-2 and then fouled off eight consecutive Matt Herges deliveries. Talk about never giving up. Lo Duca doesn’t think “let’s get this over with, let’s get showered, let’s get on the bus, let’s get to Houston.” He’s just “next pitch…” I’m sure there’s a graph somewhere that would illustrate the Mets’ likelihood of storming back from eleven behind in the ninth was nil (a little Best of Thomas Paine would also do the trick). But watching a baseball player hang in there in impossible circumstances…well that’s why you sit around all winter and stare out your southern exposure. You wait for baseball. You wait for 6-5 rallies in the ninth, of course, but you wait just as much, in a way, for Paul Lo Duca to not care that it’s 17-6 in the ninth and foul off pitch after pitch after pitch after pitch.

2) As noted, Lo Duca battles for 14 pitches and reaps nothing more than an atom ball and an atta boy. Next batter, Carlos Beltran, hits the first pitch he sees far, fair and for a double. That, too, is baseball. It evens out in the oddest ways. Beltran comes around on a single and a sac fly to make it 17-7, thus ruining my 1776/17-to-6 symmetry, but that’s OK. Nice to see the Mets taking ninth innings seriously even if their pitchers mostly laughed off this entire series.

3) I laughed a great deal during the latter portions of Lo Duca’s epic at-bat when Keith Hernandez compared Paul to Bruce Willis. What, you mean like Die Hard? asked Gary Cohen — who admitted during some desperate blowout chatter that he doesn’t go to the movies during the season. Between pitches, the announcers tried to remember the name of the latest Willis action thriller, one whose exploding title (Live Free or Die Hard) chewed up much screen space during ads on Mets telecasts not two weeks ago. Gary’s guess was Die Hard and Like It.

I can’t say why for sure, but that cracked me up. Die Hard and Like It. Captures Hollywood’s sequel ethic perfectly. Describes what this road trip has become, too. Anything one finds funny as a 17-7 decision and a four-game losing streak go final must be worth staying tuned for.

Stuck in a Moment and the Mets Can't Get Out of It

I'm beginning to think we're the worst good team in baseball. Maybe we're the best bad team, but no, we're still in first by a breathable margin (thanks Astros, thanks Dodgers). However it's framed, someone's Juneing all over our July.

As on Monday, Tuesday night I learned I've gotta keep at least one eye on these bastards. I ran an 8 o'clock errand which caused me to miss the Mets' two-run first. But OK, they scored without me, I guess it's safe to pick up a bit of other business away from the TV for just a little while. Uh-uh. Literally the next game-thing I knew, it was 6-2 Rockies. Just like it was 6-0 Rockies the night before when I dared to blink. I thought this was the Fourth of July, not the Second of February.

In case you were wondering, Aaron Sele lives, Kaz Matsui is Paul Molitor and Joe Smith remains very, very young.

Aw hell, if we can be nice to Julio Franco, we can think good thoughts in broader terms. Happy Independence Day to the greatest country on earth, no matter how “excessive” some of its foibles can be. Happy Endypendence Day, too, while we're at it. Gads, I miss him.

Autumn of the Patriarch

It's time.

Time to kick some Rockie ass? Time for young hurlers to prove something while other young hurlers heal? Time for SNY to bring the HD cameras on the road?

Yes to all of the above. But I'm not talking about those things. I'm talking about a more painful subject.

It's time for Julio Franco to step aside. Definitely for a couple of weeks, possibly for good.

Julio Franco is hitting .188. Slugging .250. Getting on base at a .322 clip. His OPS is .572. As a pinch-hitter, he's doing better but not much better — .250. On defense, he has very little value — if we had a depth chart for first base, he'd be third on it. And now his knee is hurt, so he can't run — witness the final out of our non-sweep in Philadelphia. I have a lot of respect for Julio Franco, and I'm sure if he could have run hard, he would have. But he couldn't.

As written before, as a baseball fan you have to resist falling prey to Not Player X syndrome. Seeing players and their shortcomings up close, it's easy to become irrationally certain that everything will be fine if Player X is excised from the starting lineup, the usual routine, or the roster. Who do I want playing right in late innings? Not Shawn Green. Who do I want coming into this tie game with the bases loaded? Not Scott Schoeneweis. And so on. The absence of an actual player to fill the role instead isn't the point, because that would be rational. No, in our worst moments we just want Player X to be somewhere else, to be replaced by … Schmendrick, as my co-blogger once dubbed the all-purpose replacement.

As sins of fandom go, “Not Player X” is even dopier than sentimental faith in the long-departed (I've heard rumblings of a Draft Edgardo Alfonzo movement among Mets fans, which tugs at my heart but not at my head) or crazy trade proposals. (WFAN voice: “Duh Mets shud send Heilman and Shoanwice to duh Reds for Griffey and that kid Bailey, wit duh Reds pickin' up Junior's salary.” Uh-huh. Take your meds.) But such suggestions are at least proposing alternatives, however fanciful. Not Player X is “we gotta get rid of this guy” and nothing else, as if 24 players would be an improvement.

Julio Franco doesn't deserve that. Because we don't truly want him gone. He earned his contract last April, when he saw Carlos Beltran's career path heading into the dreary subdivision along Robbie Alomar Lane, marked by such gloomy cul-de-sacs such as Booing Fans Court, Sniping Media Path and One Met Said Way. You remember: Beltran was refusing to acknowledge a curtain call, but Franco sent him to the top step, to a peace treaty with Mets fans and an MVP-worthy season. And that, one suspects, was a public example of innumerable conversations held privately in dugouts and clubhouses and hotels. We were never privy to any of them. We should be grateful for all of them.

Julio Franco is a marvelous baseball story. He's a marvelous story, period — a life with lots of chapters written in many lands, revolving around baseball but also quiet exemples of the value of living right, eating right, and drawing strength from within, whether it's from spirituality, self-confidence or both. (The Church of Faith and Fear is nondenominational.) He's given an enormous amount to baseball, and he's pretty far from done with it. You get the feeling he's one of those guys you'll never not hear about — he'll be a roving instructor, or a scout, or a bench coach, or a manager. He'll be having us doing double-takes and looking up his stats and the astonishing roster of his decades' worth of teammates for years to come.

Julio Franco is almost 49. That's not in itself reason to pack him off to the baseball hereafter. But neither should it be a guarantee of employment. That should come down to whether the Mets are better off with Franco as their primary right-handed pinch-hitter and a backup first baseman, or with someone else who could do the job and give them greater roster flexibility. Say, Ben Johnson or Ramon Castro. (A third catcher wouldn't be too different from a backup first baseman.) I have trouble believing the Mets wouldn't be better constructed with one of those guys filling Franco's role. These days the names of Lenny Harris and Rusty Staub are often invoked when discussing Franco. It's meant as a compliment, but when I hear it, my first thought is “two more guys who stayed too long at the fair.”

Sentiment is for fans, and it's a wonderful thing. But general managers (and fans trying to think like them) have to be ruthless. I'm not calling for Franco to be released — ruthless isn't the same as disrespectful. But doesn't it make sense for Franco to go on the DL until his knee is fully healed, with his role filled by Johnson — or Castro with a third catcher added? (As the always-interesting Tim Marchman writes in the New York Sun, “injuries are never good, but they can create unexpected opportunities and lead to surprising things.”) If that doesn't work and Franco heals, activate him — that's only fair. But if it does work, it's time to have a conversation.

One of baseball players' greatest strengths is their immense belief in themselves — a quality that in the best of them is every bit as superhuman as the astonishing things they can do physically. But eventually that strength becomes a weakness — to succeed at this level you need a will strong enough to deny reality, but reality always gets the final word. And it's the player who is always and inevitably the last to hear it.

The Braves are coming to Shea on August 7th. Maybe Julio Franco will be healed that day, and ready to contribute when the game is close and late. Or maybe we'll have seen that we're better off with Johnson or Castro or someone else in that role, with Franco continuing to contribute on our bench — but without leaving it. In which case it could be a perfect day for Franco to doff his hat for the cheers he's more than earned, from both dugouts and from the stands, as he begins the next chapter of a long baseball life.

Out of the Woods and Into the Rockies

They tried to make me watch the Rockies, I said no, no, no.

Yes they wear black but we didn't come back, I know, know, know.

With apologies to Amy Winehouse (and my choice for single of the decade) and to you, gentle reader, I have little of substance to add to this fine wire-service account of Monday night's Colorado fiasco during which we lost Ollie and often. Perhaps I'm just hung over from all those contests against all those 2006 playoff teams and 2007 playoff contenders to have noticed much. I'll leave it to my partner to embellish my scanty observations if he so chooses. This, by the way, was our in-game exchange:

J: Tonite sux.

G: Hope [a future game] doesn't suck as much as this one does.

As you can see, we really save our best material for each other.

Tom Glavine's one bad apple of a third took place while I was on the horn with a helpful Cablevision customer service representative asking why my MLB package disappears on one TV but not the other, hoping all the while that it would be understood I wanted it to appear on both, not vanish altogether. It was 3-0 when I was instructed to unplug the cable box. It was 6-0 when it, like the Mets' ass, was rebooted.

There's still something glitchy with the package. I eventually got the Dodgers beating the Braves, which I guess counteracts the Rockies beating the Mets and augments the Astros beating the Phillies. I didn't get to see the other West Coast games, which is most of the fun of Extra Innings. I also didn't see the Mets do a damn thing even once I was off the phone with Cablevision.

Lo Duca, In His Impolitic Way, Was Right

I'm glad Paul Lo Duca never declared his candidacy for anything other than National League All-Star Catcher. I'd hate to see his quotes taken out of context, particularly this quote fragment from Friday:

“I'm a gambler, a racist and I like 18-year-old girls.”

Can't you just hear the rest? I'm Russell Martin and I approved this message — because handling a pitching staff is too important to be left to deviants.

Of course Lo Duca wasn't making his case for the Ty Cobb Sharpened Spike Award, given each year to the player who best exemplifies the worst in humanity. The rest of what he said was:

“That's the perception in New York. Is any of it true? Not an ounce of it, and nobody knows that.”

I'll leave the gambling and 18-year-old girls out of it since that's last year's tawdry news. The other thing? In this hemisphere's most multinational dugout? I don't think that's Lo Duca. I don't know the man and I don't know what goes on behind closed clubhouse doors, but the contretemps that his defensive quote was based on didn't strike me as racist whatsoever.

It struck me as a good journalism lesson.

This is the peep from Paulie that got his latest ball of confusion rolling, as recorded first by Peter Botte and rereported (in the wake of the paper's sudden interest in the Mets) by Adam Rubin of the Daily News:

I'll do this [interview], but you need to start talking to other players. It's the same three or four people every day. Nobody else wants to talk. Some of these guys have to start talking. They speak English, believe me.

It was assumed or inferred that “some of these guys” didn't refer to Aaron Sele or Damion Easley or whichever non-Latino Met whose brain isn't picked to death before and after games. So let's go along with that premise, that Lo Duca meant you should go get quotes from somebody who isn't him or Wright or Glavine or Wagner or Green.

He's right. How can you not notice, if you're an aficionado of game stories and audio actualities, that it is essentially the same five guys who are gone to on a team that at any given moment is at least half Latino? That it's almost never one of the fellows from Puerto Rico or the Dominican or Venezuela?

Is it because Carlos Delgado is hiding in the trainers' room? Because Carlos Beltran seems about as dull off the field as he is usually exciting on it? Or is it because the Mets' beat writers are white guys who, without malice, tend to gravitate to guys with whom they can communicate most easily with the fewest obvious barriers?

Probably a little of each. The players who are dying to talk to the media are legendarily the vast minority in any accent. If you give them an out, they'll take it. The language differences certainly don't contribute to the desire to chat. It's hard enough to say something interesting in English. Imagine trying to be engaging in your second language.

Nevertheless, they're all paid enough to talk. Delgado shouldn't hide if indeed that's what he's doing (as has been implied). As for the other guys who aren't from the U.S., I haven't had a hard time understanding them when a microphone's been thrust to their lips. Beltran is gracious. Reyes explains the game very well, certainly as well as the omnipresent Wright. Gomez, 21, talked his way through the bunt that knocked out Clemens a few weeks ago (making me think Omar Minaya's policy that Met minor leaguers, wherever they're from, speak English and Spanish is one of the best ideas a GM's ever implemented). Franco has obviously seen it all. And if Delgado isn't steamed at his own performance, he's totally the man when it comes to speaking baseball. Perez, Feliciano, Valentin…I've heard them talk if not as often as their Anglo teammates. Their words are as good as anybody else's. Seek them out like you would Paulie's or David's.

I won't pretend to know the dynamic of the Met clubhouse, but everything we've been able to divine says, the occasional entertaining Lo Duca blowup notwithstanding, that everybody gets along reasonably famously. Whether it matters or not, that's reassuring. And as long as we expect to hear from ballplayers before and after games, we may as well hear from as many of them as possible. I don't think Lo Duca's a racist. But I also don't think those whose job it is to interview Mets have been mining every corner of the roster in pursuit of perspective. If there's a scandal in any of this, that's what it is.