Attention Deficit Disorder at the Stadium

So it seems Greg, my middle son, has already scored a ticket for the Jets-Ravens opener at the New Meadowlands Stadium. He says he's trying to come up with one for me, too. I hope he comes through. Man, I can already smell those bratwursts grilling . . . see the Namath and Klecko and Chrebet and Sanchez jerseys . . . hear Fireman Ed leading Gang Green with the J-E-T-S JETS! JETS! JETS! chant. Ah, the simple pleasures of being at the stadium . . .

Apparently, though, these simple pleasures aren't enough for Generation Next. An article I saw a few weeks back in The New York Times asked what I previously would have thought of as a completely nutso question: "How do you keep football fans coming to the stadium when the television coverage is so good?"

The answer, according to the piece -- at least for the Jets/Giants fans at the New Meadowlands Stadium -- is to provide more and better video than people can get from their couches. Fans can tap into free smart-phone applications that only work inside the stadium -- and that will give them access to video replays, updated stats, and live video from out-of-town games. They can even go up against fans in other sections of the arena in fantasy games! "A real-life game," the report concludes, "no longer seems to be enough."

What's even more amazing to me is that Roger Goodell actually seems to agree with this conclusion. The commish is quoted as saying, "The experience for fans in stadiums needs to be elevated to keep fans engaged."

Ohmygod. To keep fans engaged? Is the attention span of the average NFL fan really that microscopic that we need to be kept amused by the kind of lame distractions you'd find at a Bluefish-Riversharks game?

Maybe it is. When I sit down with Robby in front of the TV, I watch the football game. He watches, too. And checks Stat Tracker on his laptop for fantasy updates. And watches a second game with picture-in-picture. And follows yet another game via Gamecast on his cell. And replays the same monster hit over and over and over using DVR. All the time with those thumbs pumping, texting smack to his buddies.

You might call this multi-tasking. I call it A.D.D.

I do applaud one perk of the New Meadowlands Stadium's cutting edge technology: The smart phones can tell me which concession stands have the shortest lines. Now there's an app I can get behind.

- Hank

Another Reason To Hate Baseball

I'm gonna switch things up a bit.

Although my dad has experienced life for five more decades than I have, thus making him the "old school" part of this blog, I actually have an old-school stance on an issue in baseball.

As I miserably sit here and watch the Mets (believe me, there's nothing else on), I can't comprehend why players feel obligated to slowly jog to first base when they hit a ground ball to an infielder. And furthermore, I can't comprehend why this has become acceptable to the point where managers don't even get angry.

Sure, infielders tend to have fielding percentages high in the .900s, but there is always a chance that they make a bad throw, or that the first baseman comes up empty. And besides, what does the batter have to lose? We have to remember that these people are playing the least physically punishing sport known to man. They get up to the plate once every 18 batters, and even batting isn't tiring. Once in a while they have to sprint for four seconds to make a play in the field, and then they have 45 minutes of standing and doing nothing. There's no excuse for dogging it down the line when that is pretty much the extent of the day's workout.

I have the utmost respect for football players, basketball players, and sometimes even soccer players for the effort and commitment they put into their sports. But baseball players get paid millions of dollars to do next to nothing. The least they could do is sprint down the first base line.

- Robby

It Ain't Over 'Til It's Over

On a chilly Tuesday night in late March of 1998, a dad took his three sons, aged 16, 14, and 4, to opening day at Shea Stadium. They watched as their Mets battled the visiting Phils through nine scoreless innings . . . then 10 . . . then 11 . . . then 12. Even though the dad had taught all three boys that you never leave a ballgame till it's over, the two older boys started talking about heading home as the game dragged into the 13th inning. They were both high school students, and had to be in class by 7:30 the next morning. The dad agreed that the boys had a point.

But the four-year-old reminded everyone about the family rule, and he steadfastly refused to budge from his seat. (True, he only had to be at pre-school the next day, where naps were not only allowed, but encouraged.) His older brothers and his dad wavered . . . and the youngest got his way, as he usually did. With the game well into its fifth hour, in the bottom of the 14th inning, the Mets finally pushed across a run -- and the four-year-old and the rest of his family went home happy with a 1-0 opening day victory.

As you probably guessed, that four-year-old was Robby (in photo above, with older brother Greg) -- and he's apparently forgotten that lesson about sticking with your team 'til it's over. He's already left the Mets for dead and moved on to pre-season football. And in his last post, he strongly suggested that I do the same.

Yeah, the Mets are 10 games behind the Braves, and it's the middle of August. I'm not gonna try to tell you that things are looking good. But that's why you root for teams, and stick with teams -- to be there when the amazing happens. You don't leave a game when your team is down 8-1 so you can beat the traffic; you stay so you can be there when they score 10 runs in the bottom of the eighth and come away with an 11-8 victory (Mets v. Braves, June 30, 2000). You don't stop following your team just because they're 14 games out in July; you stick with them so you can be part of the joy when they come back and win the division title in a one-game playoff in October (Yanks over Boston, 1978). Why give up before you have to? What's the rush?

Sure, it's a longshot. But in the past week, the Mets have shown some signs of life: Johan's complete-game shutout; Dickey's one-hitter. As Robby so recently reminded us, the Mets managed to blow a 7-game lead with 17 to play back in 2007. Maybe this year it's the Braves' and the Phillies' turn to choke.

So Robby, enjoy your pre-season football, but find another room to watch it in. And Yanks and Red Sox fans, have fun with your rivalry -- at the local bar. Because on my TV, I'm still watching the Mets.

- Hank

It's Time To Give It Up

I apologize to any NFL-crazed, sick-of-baseball fans who are reading this, but I need to take the focus of this blog back to “America’s Pastime” (hopefully for the last time). I, like my two brothers, dog, and every other Mets fan I know, have given up on this season, and for good reason. The pitching staff is falling apart, scoring three runs is cause for celebration, and the Mets find ways to lose even when Johan throws 8 innings of shutout ball.

It may sound front-runnerish to give up in early August, but there’s a fine line between being a good fan and being unrealistic. I’ve invested 3 hours a night watching this team for way too long, and there comes a time when even the best fans have to give up. The free time I now have during Mets game is pretty nice, and I can rest much easier knowing that a K-Rod blown save or a David Wright strikeout doesn’t matter at all.

This weekend, we had 14 people staying with us. Several of them are Yankees fans, and a few other root for the Sox. And coincidentally, those two teams faced each other. Since my brothers and I don’t care about the Mets anymore, we had the Red Sox-Yankees game on TV to satisfy those baseball fans who still root for relevant teams. My dad walked in and angrily asked why we were watching the Yankees over the Mets. Why watch something nobody cares about when we could watch a game that at least half the room was interested in?

The 2007 season proved that even when the Mets are up 7 games in the division, they have a good chance to finish the season by watching the playoffs on TV. Now that they’re down 7 games (or maybe even more), you can throw any possible hope out the window.

The void that the Mets have left me will be easily filled by the NFL. The preseason starts tonight, with the high-powered Cowboys squaring off against the Bengals and the T-Ocho Show. For those still wasting their time with baseball, feel free to watch the Red Sox-Yankee game. For those ready to admit that it’s football season, getchya popcorn ready.

- Robby

It's NOT About the Rings

OMG -- we actually agree on something! A few days ago Robby and I were talking about how Peyton Manning and Dan Marino are easily two of the best QBs of all time, and he said it shouldn't matter that they happen to have one and zero rings, respectively, because one player can't control the fate of the whole team -- especially in football. Bingo! For quite some time, I'd been thinking exactly the same thing, and wondering how serious sports minds could possibly buy into this hogwash.

The whole nonsense about championship rings -- and it's come to a head in recent weeks in the conversations about LeBron and Kobe and D-Wade -- is a farce. People say A-Rod wasn't a real Yankee until last year, when he finally won a ring. This logic is not only ridiculous; it also misses the point that A-Rod will never be a real anything -- ring or no ring. Hello? These are team sports we're talking about. One player doesn't win. If you've got a roster filled with names like Kanehl and Cannizzaro and Throneberry, it doesn't matter if you're Ted Williams; you're not going to the World Series.

Ernie Banks is often mentioned as the best baseball player to never win a championship. Hey, Ernie Banks was one of the best shortstops in baseball history, period -- end of sentence. Is Derek Jeter better than Ernie Banks because he's got five rings? No way. Luckier, yes: Jeter plays for the Yanks; Banks played for the Cubs. The curse of the Cubs wasn't his fault. Was John Elway chopped liver until he won his first Super Bowl at age 38 -- and then all of a sudden he became great? Will LeBron be a better player when he wins in Miami (which I hate to admit, he undoubtedly will) than he was when he failed in Cleveland? Not for my money; he just came up with a better, if more cynical, strategy. The only individual whose value can, and should, be judged by the number of rings he has, is the general manager -- the guy who actually puts together the team. Or maybe the owner, who gives the GM the bucks to work with.

These days the Elias Sports Bureau can measure every infinitesmal factor in performance, from offensive winning percentage to batting average on balls in play to plus/minus points when Joe Blow is in the game . . . and we're still judging a player's worth by the number of rings he's got on his fingers??? That whole idea is as ludicrous as the positively inane idea that one particular pitcher on a team, and only that one pitcher -- The Closer -- can pitch the ninth inning of a tight game when a lead needs to be protected. What a crock! And yes, I'll be talking about that one real soon . . .

- Hank