The WSJ's New & Unconventional Take On Beat Writers

Via Baseball Think Factory, the Wall Street Journal is adding a fleet of so-called beat reporters to cover the major New York sports teams.

The Journal’s New York sports section will assign beat reporters to the major local sports teams, including the Mets, Yankees, Jets, Giants and the Knicks, sources said. They’ll be credentialed for home games, and they’ll travel to road games.

However, they won't be functioning like regular beat writers:

Sources familiar with the plans said that The Journal will not be covering games in the way that, say, the tabloids do. Instead of rehashing what happened the night before, the Journal sportswriters will be looking for news features and interesting stories from within the locker room.

That would, of course, fit it nicely in competition with — who else? — The Times.

Whereas the News and the Post continue to cover games as if it were 1998—and God bless them for it!—The Times has changed its focus over the past year. Tom Jolly, The Times’ sports editor, has put more of an emphasis on features and trend stories rather than demanding that beat reporters stay with a team every waking moment.

To their credit, the WSJ is providing their staff with the same level of access to the team as other papers, but not the same burdens of reporting every bit of the day-to-day minutiae.

There are a lot of guys on the Yankee beat right now. Fewer than there were, but probably more than there need to be. Not to say that any individual paper should discontinue its daily coverage, but if you read multiple beat writer's blogs, there is a tremendous amount of overlap between them*.

*For instance, the news Chad Gaudin being unconditionally released this morning first came from this tweet from Marc Carig of the Star-Ledger. Soon after, Brian Hoch reported the same thing on Twitter, as did Mark Feinsand. Within a half hour, MLB Trade Rumors was linking back to Carig, Hoch put up on an article on MLB.com, River Ave. Blues had the news, and Chad Jennings was reporting Gaudin's departure. About an hour and a half later, an AP story showed up on Carig's blog, Jennings had audio from Gaudin, and within two hours, Craig Calcaterra noted it at NBC Sports.

Essentially, the marginal gains a fan gets from following each additional beat writer are hardly worth the effort of reading them. For even a die-hard fan to read (or just skim) the same things in several different places over and over again seems grossly inefficient, especially when you consider that each individual beat writer is going to pick up the most important bits of information for you soon enough.

While it makes sense for papers that already have beat writers to keep them, it would be foolish for an outlet looking to stick its foot in the door to do so via a traditional beat writer.

Not many media companies could afford to pay someone to travel with a team without the expectation that they will provide thorough day-to-day coverage of it. In the days of fuzzy online revenue streams, it might be difficult to tell whether or not the expenditure is justified. The WSJ, however, is willing to take that chance.

Like Bloomberg Sports, this is another example of a financially-focused company allocating a relatively small amount of resources for a sports-related venture. Each appears to have somewhat limited upside when compared to the company's primary focuses, but both BBG and WSJ seem to be applying the practices that made them successful in other arenas to what they are doing in sports. Bloomberg is providing intuitive software for baseball analysis and the WSJ is offering companion-style reading for New York area teams.

By allowing its writers to stay close to the team but focus on producing news features and more substantial analytical pieces, The Journal has created a position with the daily access of a beat writer but the writing requirements of a columnist. By going for exclusive, high quality stories they are aiming for the kind of content that might be of interest to those who aren't fans of the specific team they cover. It seems like a best-of-both-worlds type of arrangement, but it will be up to each writer to deliver top notch content and validate those theories.

The Journal has been producing quality sports content for a while, but they have it stashed away two clicks removed from the homepage under the Life & Style tab. Now, it would appear, they are making a more serious foray into the New York sports media landscape. And by eschewing the traditional expectations of a beat writer, it seems they are on the right track.

Could Pacquaio & Mayweather Fight At Yankee Stadium?

On the heels of Manny Pacquiao's 12th round TKO against Miguel Cotto that took place in the wee hours of this past Sunday morning, the New York Times wonders if the first boxing match in the New Yankee Stadium could be the biggest fight boxing has seen in quite some time:

With the undefeated Mayweather and an international superstar in Pacquiao, the biggest draws in boxing, Greenburg said the bout would deserve a “Super Bowl-type stage.” That presents an enticing option, as early as next May — Yankee Stadium.

The Yankees are interested in hosting a Pacquiao-Mayweather fight next spring, according to a person in baseball who spoke on the condition of anonymity. There have been no formal discussions, and there will not be before an agreement is reached between the fighters, but high-ranking Yankees employees have told boxing officials of their interest.

Of course, in order for this to happen, Mayweather and Pacquiao actually have to agree to fight, something that should be a foregone conclusion but isn't. One thing that promises to make these discussions difficult is the relationship between Floyd Mayweather and Bob Arum, Pacquiao's promoter. Floyd used to be a client of Arum's at Top Rank but bought out his contract in 2006 for Golden Boy.

Since then, lawsuits have been filed, insults heaved and Mayweather has gone so as to say that he wouldn't fight Pacquiao if Bob Arum was involved. At the press conference for the Pacquaio vs. Cotto fight that took place at Yankee Stadium, Arum was confident that Yankee Stadium would host a big fight this year but pessimistic that it would be this one.

One obvious advantage that Yankee Stadium has over anywhere in Las Vegas is seating capacity. The arena in the MGM Grand seats about 17,000 people while a fight in Yankee Stadium with the field being utilized for seating would comfortably hold over 60,000. However, the 45,000 or so marginal seats that would be gained by moving the fight to Yankee Stadium would probably average say, $75 a pop, equating to just a rounding error in comparison to where the bread will really be buttered: Pay Per View buys.

Early estimates place that number for Saturday's Pacquiao vs. Cotto fight at about 1.3 to 1.4 million (at $55 each) and should the mega fight come to fruition, it would easily surpass those numbers. Floyd makes his home in Vegas and might use the location as a bargaining chip in what are sure to be contentious fight negotiations.

Each participant would be guaranteed tens of millions of dollars. The public clearly wants to see a match up between the two best pound-for-pound boxers on the planet. Each can make the case that they are the best fighter of this generation but neither will be validated until they beat the other.

It would be cool to have such a huge event take place at Yankee Stadium, but the most important thing is that it actually does happen. When push comes to shove, I think it will. Arum and Mayweather should be able to put their personal distaste for each other aside for the sake of the almighty dollar. We all know Floyd's a fan of that.

[Update: There is a similar story about the Cowboys' new stadium, for what it's worth. The venue itself would be much more conducive to hosting a huge fight but I wonder how many tickets they could sell in Dallas, which isn't the best boxing market.]

How Not To Conduct An Interview, By Mark Grace

On the Bats Blog at the New York Times, Richard Sandomir points out something that never ceases to annoy me about the postgame interviews conducted by network reporters:

Fox needs a question coach for Mark Grace. One of the failings of many sideline/stadium reporters is that they do not jot down good, solid, clear questions to ask the stars of a game.

There usually isn’t much time to prepare, but coming up with three pertinent thoughts to frame as questions, or as leading statements, shouldn’t be as hard as a nervous Grace made it when he interviewed Jimmy Rollins after the Phillies’ 8-6 win against the Yankees in Game 5 of the World Series on Monday.

Sandomir uses Grace as an example and transcribes some example from last night, but you could easily switch his name with Kim Jones, Ken Rosenthal or countless other reporters. (Here's a clip of the Rosenthal & Grace interviews from last night). It seems as though, in the cutthroat world of TV journalism, interviewers are constantly trying use their queries to display how smart they are as opposed to asking questions that lead to good responses.

Since the best baseball players - the ones most likely to be interview after the game - are interviewed so frequently during the season, they answer the questions - or in many cases weak leading statements - with relative ease. The player knows what the interviewer is getting at and usually obliges them with the type of vague and vapid answer they think they are looking for.

ESPN has actually tried to correct this problem by hiring an interview guru named John Sawatsky to conduct seminars on the proper way to interview (sort of like the "question coach" Sandomir suggested). Here is an 8 minute radio segment and accompanying article from NPR from back in 2006 on that very subject.

Sawatsky is a full time employee in Bristol and has his own office, complete with a giant question mark on the door. Max Kellerman used to talk about the "Sawatsky Technique" on his old radio show on 1050AM in New York, but would struggle to take the advice, like he did in his botched interview with Floyd Mayweather after the Juan Manuel Marquez fight.

In the seminars, Sawatsky uses interviewers like Barbara Walters and Larry King as examples of exactly what not to do. Don't ask long-winded questions (or worse, make long-winded statements) or pose inquiries that only demand a "yes" or "no" response. Ask only one question at a time. Try to learn, not validate your own opinion. Don't try to insert yourself into the interview, because the interview isn't about you:

The best questions, argues Sawatsky, are like clean windows. “A clean window gives a perfect view. When we ask a question, we want to get a window into the source. When you put values in your questions, it’s like putting dirt on the window. It obscures the view of the lake beyond. People shouldn’t notice the question in an interview, just like they shouldn’t notice the window. They should be looking at the lake.

Makes sense, doesn't it? No one wants to hear Ken Rosenthal or Kim Jones awkwardly attempt to interject their observations on what just happened. They want to hear what the player was thinking. Typically the athletes don't really have anything interesting to say either, but maybe if the people interviewing them could put some effort into crafting questions that would provoke some thoughtful responses, that wouldn't be the case.

More Calls For Replay & Why It Won't Happen

Richard Sandomir of the New York Times took a break from mercilessly pounding on Chip Caray to call for instant replay following the two plays involving Nick Swisher in the fourth inning yesterday. The second play:

Then, with Swisher on third, Johnny Damon flied out to center field and Swisher tagged up, scoring what appeared to be the Yankees’ fourth run. The Angels appealed, and the third-base umpire Tim McClelland called Swisher out, negating the run. Again, Fox’s multiple replays showed that McClelland appeared to be wrong.

Yes, the split-screen replays that were shown indicated that Swish was on third base when the ball was caught, but how do we know they are accurate? Someone on FOX's production team had to cue those up and in the process, could align the two separate pieces of footage however they wanted. We never saw Hunter catch the ball and Swisher leave the base in the same camera shot and thus never had conclusive proof one way or another.

Sandomir should have probably saved his protestations about instant replay for what happened in the fifth inning with Mike Napoli, Jorge Posada and Robinson Cano. Kevin Kaduk from Big League Stew (somewhat hyperbolically) called it the "worst call of all-time" and used it as a justification for instituting replay as well:

Why McClelland possibly decided that Cano was safe despite not touching the bag until after being tagged is beyond this galaxy's rules of logic and it sent Angel Stadium into a bloodthirsty frenzy. There are simply no words for the ruling, other to say that one of the five other umpires should've offered his assistance, McClelland shouldn't ump another game in this series and that it's time for Bud Selig to stop being stubborn and expand the use of instant replay in baseball past disputed home run calls.

Our buddy Jason suggests that replay be used only during playoff games, solely at the request of the crew chief. It's a good suggestion, but how would that work in practice?

Would managers use arguments to influence the umps to look at the replay? Unless there was a rule preventing that I'm sure they would - to the detriment of the pace of play. Managers go out to argue all the time as it and there is almost no benefit to them doing so. If they were restricted from arguing, you can bet there would be ample barking from the dugout on any questionable play. The point is that it would never really be "only" up to the crew chief.

As mentioned before, there are practical problems with any sort of disputed play when runners are moving as well. If a ball is incorrectly ruled a catch when it should have been a hit, where do you put the runners? It's not as cut and dry as we'd like it to be.

I'm all for replay and think we could figure these issues out, but unfortunately I think Rob Neyer is right when he says that it's not happening as long as Bug Selig is around:

Bud Selig has been described as a revolutionary, but of course today's revolutionary is tomorrow's reactionary. Realignment and wild cards; interleague play; expansion; franchise movement; "this time it counts"; video review ... what do all these things have in common? All have happened on commissioner Selig's watch, and nearly all have not been revisited since, even in the face of obvious deficiencies. Do we really want to see the Royals playing the Pirates in June? Are all 30 franchises perfectly placed? Is 30 the perfect number of franchises? Is the All-Star Game the best way to determine the home team in the World Series.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. My point is that these discussions are essentially irrelevant as long as Bud Selig is commissioner. I promise you that the moment a new commissioner is in place, the offices at Major League Baseball and within the 30 franchises around the nation (plus Toronto) will be buzzing with talk about addressing these and other core issues. Today, though? The commissioner has done what he's wanted to do. Why do something else now?

Blown calls are maddening when you can see them played out in slow motion HD over and over again, then commented on endlessly the next day. Especially when idiots attribute the outcome of the game to them. The technology is available and the fans at home can clearly when an error has been made. Judging by the crowd reactions in the Big A last night, the fans in the ballpark could see the them too.

There's no good reason that there shouldn't be instant replay in baseball. But there is a reason. And that reason is Bud Selig.

Afternoon Videos And Links

There's probably going to be more links than usual this week simply because it's probably better to find the best of other people's work than force ourselves to write something shitty, so here's what we've got for you this afternoon:

- You've gotta click through for this one, but you can see Joe Girardi and William Rhoden of the New York Times talking about the similarities between the strategies of playing chess and managing a baseball team (hint: there aren't that many). I don't really know what to take from this, but they play a game of speed chess on the field at Yankee Stadium with Rhianna blaring in the background and Girardi mistakenly thinks you get 5 mintues for every move.

- Below, Rick Peterson breaks down the Yankees top three starters' pitch repertoires (not that interesting). But at the 3:00 mark talks some "biomechanics" and gets into the nuts and bolts of the pitching motion at a depth that you won't find anywhere this side of Baseball Intellect. (via Jason)

- Sticking some some pitching specifics, Mike from RAB takes a comprehensive look at Phil Hughes' use of his curveball throughout the season and lack thereof in the ALDS.

- Joel Sherman isn't the first person to speculate about Joba Chamberlain taking Phil Hughes' place in the 8th inning when the ALCS rolls around, but he's probably the most respected. Here's the main problem with that theory: Joba wasn't great in the ALDS either, he just got pulled before he could do any damage. Hughes is still far and away the better option.

- Yesterday, Sherman said that the Yankees, using their own defensive metrics, believed that they improved defensively at every position besides left field and catcher from 2008. Today, Beyond the Box score busted out one of their fancy new UZR visualizations for the Yankees and despite those supposed gains, it still doesn't look too pretty.

- Emma Span from Bronx Banter was on Jeopardy last night. I didn't read that post yet because I DVR'd but haven't watched the episode. So don't ruin it for me if you have, thanks.

- The Arizona Fall League is underway and Pending Pinstripes runs down the top prospects playing out West including Ian Kennedy, Mike Dunn, Austin Romine and Zach Kroenke.

Does Chip Caray Literally Need Glasses?

Richard Sandomir wondered if Caray's blatant miscues were a result of failing vision in his column dedicated to the broadcaster's inaccuracies on Thursday (emphasis mine):

But the sort of inattention that led to Caray’s call was evident again Wednesday when Nick Swisher came to bat in Game 1 of the Twins-Yankees division series. “A base — fly ball, I should say — out to center field,” he said. “That ball was hooking and nearly fell in front of Delmon Young.”

Perhaps Caray’s eyesight, not his baseball judgment, is undermining him. Yes, he caught himself in his error, but he larded on a fiction to suggest that Young had a difficult time with a ball that he effortlessly caught chest-high.

In the awkward portion of the broadcast after the 7th inning stretch but before the bottom half of the inning where Chip Caray and Ron Darling are given the floor to needlessly pontificate about the development of the game to that point, look what Chip was wearing:

And then, they were gone.

For a fleeting moment, Chip conspicuously donned a pair of librarian-style, end-of-the-nose reading glasses before casually removing them. Did ol' Chip read Sandomir's article and decide to deflect some criticism by conspicuously exposing his poor eyesight? Or worse, was it more calculated than that? I know I'm venturing on to a grassy knoll of sorts, but it's not like it was an obscure sports blog that was speculating that Caray's vision was responsible for his notable miscues.

Caray had to know that he was being ridiculed by the New York Times and perhaps he (or an advisor of his) was savvy enough to identify the out the Times had given him within their critique. Failing eyesight is a handicap that can be corrected. The inability to perform under pressure is a scarlet letter that has ruined countless careers in a myriad of industries and a harsh critique that professional wants to hear about themselves.

Maybe I'm way off-base here, but if you see Phil Cuzzi or C.B. Bucknor address the media wearing a pair of Rec Specs any time soon, just remember you heard it here first.

A Mystery Fit For A Sultan

Over at the New York Times, they have a story about a short bit of footage of Babe Ruth that recently was discovered by an elderly man some among home videos in New Hampshire and donated the Major League Baseball Film and Video Archive (where our buddy Schiff is currently working):

The latest Babe Ruth film, unseen publicly until now, is part of a 90-second clip shot from the first-base stands at Yankee Stadium. There is no sound. But there are sweeping views of the park. And there is Ruth, obvious by his shape and waddle.

He is shown in right field, hands on his knees, glove on his right hand. To a casual fan, it appears unremarkable. But it represents the archive’s only game action of Ruth playing in the outfield — where he spent more than 2,200 games — other than a between-innings game of catch.

According to the article, there is no known film of Ruth pitching for Boston or doing anything more than warming up to pitch for the Yankees, either. Only a very small amount of footage of Ruth is know to exist (about an hour's worth), and given his immense popularity and the scarcity of it, when a new piece turns up, it's a pretty big deal.

Even though the film comes with no date and no sound, they've been able to deduce a decent amount of clues from it, based on the flag pole in centerfield, dimensions of and advertisements the outfield walls, lack of numbers on the jerseys, time of day, size of the crowd, positioning of the Yankees' dugout, batter on deck and the fact that Ruth struck out looking.

There's some interesting discussion starting over here on the Bats blog (and as always over here) as to what the footage can tell us, but the archivists think that it might be from one of the first two games of the 1928 World Series against the Cardinals. You can watch just the original film at the Bats Blog or a report about the MLB Archive with the main article. Check it out.

Yanks Slash Prices On Most Expensive Seats For Playoffs

On Monday the Yankees send out a press release announcing their ticket prices for the postseason. It garnered a good amount of positive press based on the fact that the prices are going to be lower than they were in 2007, which is fairly remarkable considering that took place across the street at the Old Stadium.

Without getting into specifics, almost all of the prices for the ALDS are equivalent to the regular season norms, and it escalates from there as it gets deeper into October.

Well it's nice that the Yankees have made their ticket prices for the playoffs more affordable, although you could probably argue that since they haven't registered a sellout since Opening Day, it might be more of a necessity than a courtesy. But when the playoffs roll around guess who gets the real break... the people with the most expensive seats. From the press release (emphasis and numbering mine):

Regular season ticket prices for full-season ticket licensees (non-Suites) will be replicated for the 2009 American League Division Series (i.e., a Main Level ticket that costs a full season ticket licensee $60 in the 2009 regular season will cost the same licensee $60 for the ALDS), (1) however, full-season ticket licensees (non-Suites) of $325 Field Level seats may purchase their seats for the ALDS at the lower price of $275 each.

>8

(2) Full-season Suite licensees in the Legends Suite, Delta Sky360 Suite and Jim Beam Suite, have all already paid their Suite license fees. Accordingly, they will only be required to purchase their Suite tickets, which will range from $65-$275 per Suite ticket for the ALDS, $115-$350 per Suite ticket for the ALCS, and $150-$425 per Suite ticket for the World Series.

What that boils down to is that (1) the very best non-Legends seats are going to be less expensive for the people with the seat licenses and (2) the (mainly corporate) Suite ticket holders don't have to pay their license fee at all.

Now, considering the fact that the first bunch paid $325 for their seats all year, it doesn't make a ton of sense to suddenly drop the price for by far the most desirable games of the season. I guess that's the Yankees' way of throwing them a bone after ripping them off all this time.

As for the Legends and other Suites, their license fees make up a giant portion of the ticket price. For instance, the seats I sat in back in June had a $250 seat license and just a $150 face value, meaning that they would only cost the latter amount for the ALDS. (The ~$100 food and beverage fee would still apply, but that's optional).

We've discussed the concept and execution of the Legends Seats multiple times here and an underlying theme throughout those posts was a distaste for the way that the Yankees have bent over backwards to cater to the their richest customers, while taking for granted their core fans.

This would seem to be another example of that, but the upshot is that it's highly unlikely the seats that so often sat unoccupied early in the year will be similarly vacant when October rolls around. Furthermore, if the Yanks sell out all their seats, it might trigger the release of the supposed standing room only seats which would make playoff tickets easier to come by for non-season ticket holders. In that scenario, everyone wins.

Another intersting offshoot (for me at least) is whether or not the Yanks will lower the prices for the Legends seats next year. It would be tough to do because some of the companies signed multi-year contracts at the original prices. Something to keep an eye on this offseason...

(Full disclosure: This post in the NYT Bats Blog noticed the same policy in the press release and came to some of the same conclusions, but I had this post written before that one was published. I didn't really feel the need to go back and retroactively insert it into my post.)

The Yankees Have A Mascot?

While watching the video of A-Rod and Jerry Hairston Jr. playing stickball with kids in the Bronx that has been circulating the Interwebz recently, I noticed an interesting spectator lurking in the crowd.

Wha, wha, whaaaat? As A.J. Burnett might say "That motherfucker?".

The Yankees with all their "class" and "tradition" and "pride" would never have a mascot, would they?

Well, yes, actually, it turns out that once upon a time, they did.

From an article in the New York Times from 1998 (h/t WasWatching), we found out that Yankees did in fact have a oversized fuzzy costume representing the franchise from 1982-85. Unfortunately Dandy did exist, despite the fact that both George Steinbrenner and Lonn Trost both denied remembering so back in '98. Steinbrenner might have had an excuse, but I'm guessing Trost was just lying.

So, back to the current fuzzy disgrace. What is that thing supposed to be? Does it have a name? Was this just an ad hoc creation? It doesn't look like a mascot designed specifically with the Yankees in mind with the red belly and all. Did someone throw that jersey on a generic mascot? It's looks kinda short though, like it was custom fit, doesn't it? Perhaps the Yanks have a mascot that goes around to events where kids will be? Are we okay with this as long as it doesn't show up at the Stadium?

It shows up aroung the 1:00 mark. Discuss.

When Is A Slump A Slump?

Good morning, Fackers. Yes, I just made a Geology picture "joke". Doc Nardacci would be so proud... Now get ready for some logarithms! WAKE UP!

Over at the Freakonomics blog at the NYT, they used some statistics to propose a more solid definition for what actually consititues a slump (or any streak with an absence of a certain event) using A-Rod as an example (h/t BBTF):

It occurred to me that it would be pretty easy to derive a statistical standard for determining when an athlete was having a “statistically significant slump.” For example, Alex Rodriguez recently went through a homerless drought of 72 at-bats. Over his career, A-Rod has averaged one homer for every 14.2 at bats — suggesting there is about a 93 percent chance that he will not homer on any individual at bat. It would be crazy to say that he was in a home-run slump after failing to homer after just a few at bats. But the question is how many homer-less at bats is enough to be a statistically significant drought?

The answer is 42. There is less than a 5 percent chance that Rodriguez would go homerless 42 times in a row — so we can reject the hypothesis (at a 5 percent level of statistical significance) that he is going homer-less merely as a matter of chance.

They are essentially drawing the line at a 95% confindence interval (2 standard deviations), but you can set your own parameters by altering the simple formula:

Total consecutive number of bad events > log(.05)/log(probability of single bad event)

It's a little more difficult because you have to play around with it to find the right number, but you can also figure out what the likelihood of A-Rod going on a 72 at bat homerless streak (beginning in his next at bat) would be. It's about one half of one percent.

Using this method, we can determining the (im)probability that Derek Jeter would go 113 plate appearances without working a walk like he did from July 28th to August 25th. In 9656 career PAs, Jeter has walked 863 times, giving him a walk rate about approximately 8.9%. This makes the odds of him going that long without a base on balls 0.0025% or 1 in 4,000.

Fun stuff, huh? No? Well at least it gives you a way, numerically, to prove that Tim McCarver is an idiot. You're welcome.

Obstructed Views? WHAT???

In the New York Times today, Ken Belson has some startling revlations about the New Yankee Stadium and Citi Field... THEY MIGHT HAVE OBSTRUCTED VIEWS!!1!!1!1:

The Mets and the Yankees together have spent more than $2 billion on new stadiums partly to bring fans much closer to the action. But that access comes at a cost. For the best views, fans will have to pay eye-popping prices to sit on the field level and in the decks behind home plate in seats angled toward the infield.

Fans on tighter budgets, though, will have to settle for seats in far-off sections, some of which have obstructed views of the field.

Old news, Ken, old news. New Stadium Insider has been all over this. Even we wrote a post about it.

Here is the part that kills me though (emphasis mine):

Mets fans learned this the hard way on Sunday, when St. John’s and Georgetown played the first game at Citi Field. Steven Gottesman, who has a 15-game ticket plan, went to see his four seats in Section 533, Row 15, near the top of the upper deck down the left-field line. To his “shock and horror,” he could not see the warning track or about 20 feet of the outfield from the left-field line to center field.

Dude, Steven. You bought tickets in Section 533, "near the top of the upper deck". What the fuck did you expect? Have you even been to a ballpark before? A lot of the seats in the upper deck in every park have slightly obstructed views. "Shock and horror" is what you feel when you find a dead body checking into your hotel room, not when the seats for your 15 game package IN SECTION 533 don't have a view of 20 feet of the fucking outfield.

“In other words, I will only know if a home run is hit if I am listening to a radio at the game or I wait to see the sign from the umpire,” Gottesman, 45, said in an e-mail message.

Wow, this guy really has never been to a baseball game before. Steve, if you are unsure if a home run was just hit, ask yourself a few simple questions:

1. How is the crowd reacting?
2. A roaring cheer?
3. A collective sigh?
4. Okay, what team is batting?
5. Is the batter rounding the bases?
6. Did the outfielder throw the ball back into the infield?
7. Are fans of either team high-fiving each other nearby?
8. Does the pitcher look like he just got punched in the stomach?
9. How have I not figured this out by now?
10. Will I ever get this eight precious seconds of my life back?

Gottesman added: “If Endy Chávez made his catch in this new stadium and I had been there, I would not have seen it.”

No, you might not have theoretically seen it (leaving aside the fact that this is a different park), but you would have experienced the rest of Shea Stadium going absolutley out of their minds. You know where you could have viewed it perfectly? At home on your HDTV.

You don't go to a game to see every single thing that happens, Steve. You go to take in the atmopshere, and to say that you were there when it occurred. I was at a game in 2005 where Bernie Williams hit a walk off 2 run HR in the bottom 11th inning into the short porch in right. I was in the right field upper deck and couldnt see it acutally leave the park, but I knew about two thirds of a second after it happened. If you were at Game 7 of the 2006 NLCS and had your view obscured, do you really think you'd be bitching about the fact that you couldn't see that one play?

Steve, if you are reading (doubtful), stop being a douche and sell your tickets to someone who might actually appreciate being at the game. I'm not even a Mets fan and I'd buy a few.