Back Page Barometer 4/23-29

- In which we gauge the popularity of New York’s major league franchises by using the ultimate indicator: appearances on the back page of The Post and The Daily News.

Last week, the Mets and Yanks were featured on 6 back pages each. Really, though, it was a better week for the Mets, as they must overcome an institutionalized Yankee bias in order to get any attention at all. Furthermore, all of the back pages devoted to them were positive, celebrating victory, while the Yanks coverage leaned towards slightly hysterical reactions to their underachieving ways.

So how did things go this week? Let's check the numbers:

Baseball Covers: 12
News: 6 (3 positive, 3 negative)
Post: 6 (2 positive, 4 negative)

Yankee Covers: 9
News: 5 (2 positive, 3 negative)
Post: 4 (1 positive, 3 negative)

Met Covers: 2
News: 1 (1 positive, 0 negative)
Post: 1 (1 positive, 0 negative)

The status quo returned this week, as the Yanks dominated tabloid coverage despite playing mediocre ball (though the Mets admittedly didn't play any better). For the first time, the News featured more Yankees covers than the Post, an occurrence we do not expect to happen again anytime soon (as the Post loves covering the Yankees almost as much as it loves fellating our president). This was due to the Post's decision to devote Monday's back cover to Lenny Dykstra, and allegations against him regarding steroid use ("Nailed!", screamed the headline, a reference to Lenny's nickname of "Nails").

The overall dynamic is this: The Yankees are the first-born prodigal sons of NYC baseball land, their every move (good and bad) chronicled in meticulous detail. The Mets' are the lovable but less cared about step-children. Every once in a while they get a condescending pat on the head, but generally they're left to wilt unattended like a neglected geranium (see the season totals at the end of this post for documentation of this).

Random Observations:

- More than 3 weeks into the season, and neither Pedro Martinez (or Met-inez, as the News dubbed him in the offseason) or Carlos Beltran has yet to be featured on a back cover. Surprising, considering they are two of NYC baseball's marquee names.

- For the second week in a row, the Nets recieved one cover from each tab. These have been the only non-baseball covers in the last two weeks. With the Nets on the brink of elimination, the Knicks already out, and no hockey, baseball back-page dominance will only increase.

Headline of the Week: News, 4/26

Aaron Heilman only allowed 1 run in 7 innings pitched against the Braves, and the Mets held on to win the game 5-4. The News responded with the slightly bizarre "Thank Aaron" headline the next day.

Season Totals

Baseball Covers: 44
News: 23 (11 positive, 12 negative)
Post: 21 (9 positive, 12 negative)

Yankee Covers: 30
News: 14 (6 positive, 8 negative)
Post: 16 (6 positive, 10 negative)

Met Covers: 13
News: 9 (5 positive, 4 negative)
Post: 4 (3 positive, 1 negative)

Are You There, God? It's me, Ben.

Since last October, I have made my living as a temp. It's an ever tenuous situation, as many jobs are described as "open-ended", and subject to termination at a moment's notice. That's what happened to me on Thursday. Since the end of March, I had been working at a real estate company called Wellsford Real Properties, doing accounts payable. Not my life's calling, but I didn't mind it, especially considering I only had about 15 hours of work to do in any typical 40 hour week. I figured the job may last for a while, since the woman who I had inherited the job from had done it for the last five years, after originally starting off as a temp like myself.

But it was not to be. On Thursday afternoon, I was abruptly called into my boss' office. He looked kind of edgy when I walked in; he curtly said "How are you doing?" before launching into the reason I was there: he had decided to eliminate my position because there wasn't enough work. I didn't appreciate the short notice, but I'm a temp. Those are the breaks. I went back to my desk with a tear in my eye, stuffing checks into envelopes for what would be the last time. Within 20 minutes, my cell phone rings. It is a 212 number I do not recognize. I tentatively answer it (cell phones are not technically allowed in the work place, but hey, fuck you, I just got laid off). It's Kelly from Merlin staffing (a temp agency I interviewed with about 6 weeks ago, who had not called me since). "Are you available?", she asks. "Lady, I'm always available", I answer.

So, she gives me a new job. Starting Monday, I'll be doing who knows what at some awkwardly named midtown law firm. 40 hours a week at a mighty $15 an hour (not a great amount, but sadly a bit more than I made when I did truly difficult work as an assistant teacher last year).

If I was a smug, small-minded, insufferable prick, I'd close this anecdote with the observation that "God was looking out for me. When one door closed he opened another". Fuck that. I got lucky. God, if you want to open a door for me, then open the one that gives me unlimited access to nubile young co-eds. Thanks, I'll talk to you later.

The Franco-Files #3 (4/20-4/26)

- in which we track the exploits of Julio and John Franco, baseball’s two oldest players.

When we last left our unfathomably old duo, both had just had underwhelming weeks. Julio only managed one hit in his last 7 at-bats, while John allowed his first run of the year (albeit an unearned one), which made him the pitcher of record in a 4-3 loss to the Mets. Let’s check in with both players, shall we?

Julio

Julio appeared in 4 games this week, starting one of them. He received one pinch at-bat in each of the three games he did not start, and went hitless in all three of them. This drops his average as a pinch-hitter to a still very respectable .375 (3-8). While Julio was no doubt disappointed by his failure in the pinch this week, he was most certainly pleased by his performance on April 23rd against the Phils. In this game (which the Braves won 11-1) he went 2-4 with a walk and three runs scored while making several outstanding defensive plays. No doubt Julio is seeking revenge on the Phils for trading him (and four other players) for Von Hayes in 1982. Where’s Von Hayes now, Philadelphia? Where’s Von Hayes now?

Oldest Pitcher Faced (week): Tim Worrell, 37 (83 cumulative years in this match-up)
Oldest Pitcher Faced (year): Roger Clemens, 42.
Youngest Pitcher Faced (week): Gavin Floyd, 22 (Julio had just been traded to the Cleveland Indians when this Phillies rookie was born in 1983. Julio doubled off of him to mark the occasion).
Youngest Pitcher Faced (year): The aforementioned Mr. Floyd, who has since been sent down to the minors after Julio proved to be too much to handle.
Total Pitchers Faced (week): 7, who were a combined 113 years younger than Julio (avg. 16.1 years younger).
Total Pitchers Faced (year): 19, who have been a combined 276 years younger than Julio (avg. 14.5 years younger).

John

John did not see much action this week, appearing in just two contests. On April 21st, John came in to start the top of the 9th inning, with his Astros leading 8-4. John faced Geoff Jenkins, hit him with a pitch, and was subsequently yanked. Jenkins later scored, thus ending up as John’s first earned run of the year. Things went much better three days later against the Cardinals. For the first time all season, John pitched more than a third of an inning. Yes, he pitched a mighty two thirds of an inning, retiring both David Eckstein and Larry Walker. This was John’s strongest outing of the year, and gives us reason to hope that there’s still some life left in that left arm of his after all.

Oldest Batter Faced (week): Larry Walker, 38 (82 cumulative years in that match-up).
Oldest Batter Faced (year): The aforementioned Mr. Walker, who did not walk off of John. He popped out. He should change his name to Larry Popout-er.
Youngest Batter Faced (week): David Eckstein, 30 (born while John was in the midst of puberty, undoubtedly already a larger man than the diminutive Mr. Eckstein.
Youngest Batter Faced (year): Jose Reyes, 21.
Total Batters Faced (week): 3, who were a combined 34 years younger than John (avg. 11.3 years younger).

Total Batters Faced (year): 12, who have been a combined 166 years younger than John (avg. 13.8 years younger).

Jury Duty part II: The Trial

- a blow-by-blow account of performing a valuable civic duty.

(Last Tuesday I wrote about the jury selection process. Today, I write about the Trial.)

10:00 As instructed, I show up at 60 Centre Street, the location of NYC’s cavernous Supreme Court building. I make my way to the jury reporting room on the 4th floor, a huge waiting area with very high ceilings. On the walls are giant murals depicting Colonial-era heroes, lest we forget who set up this whole “trial by jury” legal system. I’m told to take a seat and wait for my case to be called. I follow these instructions perfectly.

11:20 Jurors for the LaBoy case are instructed to report to the front desk. That’s me! I’m a juror on the LaBoy case! Larry the Court Officer (a likeable, slightly oafy white guy in his 30s) is waiting for us. He introduces himself and leads us out of the waiting area and through a labyrinth of staircases and hallways until we arrive at jury room 331m, which will be our private room for the duration of the case. The 8 of us (this is a civil trial, there are 6 jurors as well as 2 alternates) sit around a big wooden table, and Larry gives us a brief run-down of our situation (that the case should start soon, and that there is a good chance the parties involved may settle). Sitting around this table, I get a good look at my fellow jurors: 5 white women, 2 white men (including myself), and one black woman. We perfectly reflect the diversity of New York City. Larry makes his exit, and we are left to wait in room 331m until the case begins.

11:40 Larry re-enters our juror’s lair and tells us the case is about to begin, and that we are now to follow him into the courtroom. He leads us down a flight of stairs to a big wooden door, knocks twice (perhaps the secret knock of a court officer), then opens it and yells “Please rise for the jury”. We then enter the room, and indeed, everyone has risen for us: the judge, both lawyers, the plaintiff and his mother, the court reporter, and one other gentleman whose job title I am still not sure of. This gentleman (a white-haired, white-bearded man in his 50s) walks over to us and has us take some sort of oath in which we the jury pledge to be fair and attentive. I’m perhaps too attentive, as I can’t help but notice the massive bulge in this man’s pants. When everyone was told to rise for the jury, it seems that he took this command quite literally.
Regardless, the trial is now underway. So far, we in the jury have only been given a brief synopsis of the case: that in October of 2000, a 10 year old boy tripped and fell on the staircase of the city-owned building where he and his mother lived. The boy suffered a severe ankle injury that required surgery. His mother then sued the city, maintaining that the stair he tripped on was broken, and that the injury would not have happened were it not for the city’s negligence. Now it’s time for us in the jury to hear the facts of the case, and then judge whether the city really was at fault.
The judge, a stern black woman in her 50s, reads us a redundant list of rules and regulations concerning how she expects the trial to be conducted. While she is talking, I notice how loud the room is, full of creaking and squeaking noises of indeterminate origin, as if haunted by the ghosts of trials past.
Whether haunted or not, the trial then begins in earnest. The lawyer for the plaintiff, Mr. Brian King, stands and makes his opening argument, the gist of which is that he is confident that we in the jury will come to the conclusion that Mr. LaBoy’s ankle injury was a result of the City of New York’s negligence. I notice Mr. King’s habit of systematically making eye contact with each member of the jury, trying to connect with us on a personal level. He’s slick, this Mr. King, but I can’t help but like him.
Mr. King is followed by the city’s lawyer, Ms. Leung. She is certainly in an unsympathetic position, having to argue against a poor Hispanic family while taking the side of a massive entity rather than an actual person. Still, she plants seeds of doubt quite effectively, emphatically maintaining that Mr. Laboy’s story regarding what happened on the day in question is riddled with holes and contradictions, and that the city was in fact NOT at fault in any way.
After these opening arguments, the first witness is called to the stand, none other than Mr. LaBoy himself. Although the injury occurred when he was 10, he is now almost 15. (No one has ever accused the legal system of moving too fast.) His mother watches nervously from the spectator viewing area, every time I glance at her she seems to be compulsively scratching at her arms. Mr. LaBoy is sworn in (by the still-erect white-haired gentleman), and Mr. King begins to question him about his injury. Mr. LaBoy answers very quietly; he speaks hesitantly and with a slight lisp, and is hard to hear despite the fact that he is speaking into a microphone. Mr. King soon introduces evidence into the case: polaroids of the staircase in question, in which one can clearly see the stair on which Mr. LaBoy fell. It is chipped and jagged. Mr. King then has LaBoy walk down in front of the jury box, where he lifts his pant leg and displays the scars from his ankle surgery.
Mr. LaBoy is then cross-examined by the defense. She attempts to exploit holes in his story, especially regarding discrepancies between his current testimony and a sworn deposition he gave in July of 2002. For reasons yet unclear, a sticking point for both sides seems to be whether Mr. LaBoy fell as a result of trying to avoid a puddle of urine on the staircase. Ms. Leung brought up this issue, and Mr. King immediately objected. The objection was sustained. Ms. Leung then pauses like she is going to re-phrase her question, but instead simply repeats it. Mr. King objects again, and it is again sustained. She pauses once more, and then asks the question for the third time. Mr. King objects again, and once again the objection is sustained. Only then did Ms. Leung move on. I thought the whole exchange was hilarious, though there was probably a strategy to it that I did not pick up on.
At 1 p.m., we break for lunch, though the defense was not yet done her cross-examination. She’ll finish when we return.

1:00-2:00 Lunchtime. I stroll down to Chinatown and get an excellent vegetarian lunch (shredded vegetable meat with hot green pepper, bean curd soup, brown rice, and tea) for the extremely fair price of $4.00. Being able to eat lunch in Chinatown is a phenomenal perk of jury duty, and makes me wish that the case will last for a while.

2:00 Following the photocopied directions that Larry had given us earlier, I make it make my way back to jury room 331m. Fifteen minutes later, Larry comes in to escort us back to the courtroom. Everyone rises for us, once again. It’s really nice having people stand up every time you enter a room. It generally does not happen at my temp job. Ms. Leung quickly finishes her cross-examination. A humorous aspect regarding her style of questioning was the way she ended every statement she made by saying “Correct?” in a clipped, nasal voice. It sounded more like she was saying “ker-ank?” over and over again. Mr. King then asks LaBoy a few follow-up questions, dealing with the treatment he has received from one Dr. Strauss (another seemingly important element in the case). With that, LaBoy’s time on the witness stand is done.

2:46 The judge sends us back to room 331m for what we are told will be a brief recess. I’m not sure of the legal definition of “brief”, but am pretty certain that it implies a length of time not much more than half an hour in length. Well, 30 minutes passes by, then 60. We have not been summoned back. Finally, after an hour and a half, the white-haired gentleman with the perpetual hard-on comes into the room. He thanks us for our patience, says we have not been forgotten, and mentions that “something” is going on in the courtroom. He says that they’ll let us know what’s going on as soon as they can. He then leaves, taking the bulge in his pants with him.

4:47 Mr. White-Hair re-enters our room, this time followed by a special guest: the judge! She tells us that the case has just been settled monetarily, and that our service is done. We are free to go.

While I was happy to not have to miss any more work as a result of jury duty, I was also disappointed that we would be unable to see the case to its completion. It was frustrating to wrap myself up in the trial, thinking I had a major role, only to be made irrelevant. On the way to the elevators, I talked to other members of the jury about the case for the first time. They seemed to be leaning towards the plaintiff. I was as well, though far from convinced. I assume that the case was settled because the city knew that the LaBoy’s had a convincing argument, and was nervous about the prospect of a jury-determined cash award. But who really does know?
So long as I can fit it into my schedule, I’d be happy to serve as a juror again (especially in NYC, where the courts are so close to Chinatown). It’s a nice break from work, provides one with plenty of free time, and is an interesting glimpse into a world most of us have no familiarity with (outside of movies and television). In two years, when I am again called to perform this civic duty, my verdict will most certainly be: AWESOME!

Al Leiter ERA Qualification Update #3

Al’s ERA: 5.66
Innings Pitched: 20.2
Marlins Games: 19
Qualifies: Yes! (+1 2/3rds innings)

(To qualify for the ERA title, a pitcher must average at least 1 inning pitched for each game played. In the NL, 58 pitchers currently qualify for the ERA title.)

Best: Roger Clemens, Astros, 0.32
Al: 5.66, 52nd place
Worst: Joe Kennedy, Rockies, 8.18

Oh man, this was a tough week for Al. He started one time, against the Mets on April 21st. He was rocked for 8 runs in just 3 innings, taking the loss (he’s now 0-2) and raising his once-respectable 2.55 ERA to a bloated 5.66 in the process. What’s worse, his meager 3 innings of work was just barely enough to keep him above the minimum needed to qualify for the ERA title. But this is why we follow Al so meticulously; no one said his journey to 162 innings pitched would be easy!

Better luck next week, Al. We’ll all be rooting for you on April 27th, when you go against Joe Kennedy of the Rockies, he of the worst ERA in the National League.

Remember, you can’t spell Al Leiter without ERA!

Back Page Barometer #2

- In which we gauge the popularity of New York’s major league franchises by using the ultimate indicator: appearances on the back page of The Post and The Daily News.

When we last tallied the Mets and Yankees respective back-page appearances, a clear trend had emerged: The Yankees simply get attention (whether they deserve it or not). The Post in particular was appallingly Yankee-centric, with an 8:1 Yankees-Mets ratio.

So how did things go this week? Let’s check the numbers:

4/16-22
Total Baseball Covers: 12 (8 positive, 4 negative)
News: 6 (5 positive, 1 negative)
Post: 6 (3 positive, 3 negative)

Yankee Covers: 6 (2 positive, 4 negative)
News: 2 (1 positive, 1 negative)
Post: 4 (1 positive, 3 negative)

Met Covers: 6 (6 positive, 0 negative)
News: 4 (4 positive, 2 negative)
Post: 2 (2 positive, 0 negative)

What deserves notice this week is that both tabs belatedly picked up on the fact that the Mets have been playing some fun, solid baseball as of late. While still lagging far behind the Yanks in overall coverage (21-11), the Mets were featured in a respectable 6 back pages this week. What’s more, all 6 of them were positive, celebrating Amazin’ victories.

Still, the Post’s Yankee bias manages to shine through. This bias was most apparent on April 16th, when the Post devoted their back page to the potential consequences of Gary Sheffield’s brawl with Fenway fans (Don’t Expect Ban"), despite the fact that the night before Met starter Aaron Heilman pitched a masterful one-hit shutout against the Marlins (hence the News’ "One-Hit Wonder" headline the next day). Don’t expect this trend to reverse itself anytime soon, as the Post seems to regard the Mets with the sort of contempt it usually reserves for Hilary Clinton.

Headline of the Week: Post, 4/22/05
The Mets scorched their ex-teammate Al Leiter last Thursday, scoring 8 runs off of him in 3 innings en-route to a 10-1 victory, and the Post responded with the eminently clever "Leit’s Out", accompanied by a pic of Doug Mientkiewicz connecting for a grand slam.

Season Totals

Baseball Covers: 32 (15 positive, 17 negative)
News: 17 (8 positive, 9 negative)
Post: 15 (7 positive, 8 negative)

Yankee Covers: 21 (9 positive, 12 negative)
News: 9 (4 positive, 5 negative)
Post: 12 (5 positive, 7 negative)

Met Covers: 11 (6 positive, 5 negative)
News: 9 (4 positive, 4 negative)
Post: 3 (2 positive, 1 negative)

The Greatest Sentence of All Time

Both Canseco brothers were dressed in vampire costumes for the Halloween party at a nightclub called Opium Garden.

Perhaps nothing is more important to a baseball player's success than the song playing over the PA when he walks to the batter's box. A recent development in stadium protocol is that home players get to choose their song themselves. This decision should not be taken lightly, as a well-picked song gives the batter a distinct psychological edge, signaling to the pitcher that he means business; that he will in fact soon rock the pitcher as surely as his musical selection is rocking the ballpark.

I've been to two Mets games so far this season, and I am beginning to get acquainted with each player's chosen songs. The best and worst so far:

Best

Mike Piazza: "War Pigs", by Black Sabbath.
Nothing signals offensive firepower better than the ominous, down-tuned riffage of one of the most fantastically heavy songs of all time. Great choice, Mike. Now grow back your facial hair and you'll be good to go.

Worst

David Wright" "Numb-Encore", By Jay-Z and Linkin Park.

Wright's a young guy. Perhaps his reletive inexperience in the bigs led to this atrocious selection. Jay-Z on his own is acceptable, but not this whiny, regrettable mash-up with Pu-Metal heroes Linkin Park. This song is a musical steroid, shrinking Mr. Wright's ball sac as he approaches the batter's box. David Wright? More like David Wrong...musical selection, that is!

I'll update these honors upon attending future games...

The Franco Files #2 (4/13-4/19)

- in which we track the exploits of Julio and John Franco, baseball’s two oldest players.

When we last left our geriatric heroes, Julio was coming off a stellar opening week (hitting a robust .385), while John had struggled somewhat (despite his misleading 0.00 ERA). Let’s see how they did in week #2…

Julio

Appeared in 3 games, starting one of them. In these three games, he only managed one hit (a pinch-single off of Billy Wagner of the Phils) in 7 at bats. That means he hit just .143 for the week. The biggest source of Julio’s woes was none other than 42 year-old Roger Clemens (the second oldest pitcher in baseball), who retired him three straight times in what was an eventual 12 inning, 1-0 Astros victory. Julio’s average now stands at a respectable .300. He has fared much better as a pinch hitter (3-5, .600 avg.) than as a starter (3-15, .200 avg.). Despite his poor week, Julio remains massively popular among his teammates. If the Braves were responsible for picking the Pope instead of the Cardinals, then Julio would have been a shoo-in. No one quite understands why the Cardinals chose former catcher Bruce Benedict to follow in John Paul II’s footsteps.

Oldest Pitcher Faced (week): Roger Clemens, 42. (88 cumulative years. The only possible match-up that would be older than Julio vs. Clemens would be an epic Julio vs. John Franco battle. But if that happened the world would end).
Oldest Pitcher Faced (year): The aforementioned Clemens, of course.
Youngest Pitcher Faced (week): Dan Wheeler, 27 (Julio was a 19 year-old disco maniac when Wheeler was born).
Youngest Pitcher Faced (year): Chad Cordero, 23.
Total Pitchers Faced (week): 4, who were a combined 54 years younger than Julio (avg 13.5 years younger).
Total Pitchers Faced (year): 13, who are a combined 179 years younger than Julio (avg. 13.8 years younger).

John

John’s week had its ups and downs. He appeared in three games, allowing no earned runs over a total of one inning of work. His ERA remains at 0.00. A very tenuous 0.00, however, as hitters batted .400 against him (2-5, along with a walk), and he allowed 2 of 3 inherited baserunners to score. What’s more, he picked up his first loss of the year on April 14th, against his old mates, the Mets. John left that game with the score tied at 3, responsible for Jose Reyes, who was on first at the time. Dan Wheeler came in, Reyes stole second, and then scored on an error on third baseman Mike “Leg of” Lamb. A tough luck loss, to be sure. John’s record falls to 0-1 on the year, and 90-87 for his career. Victory will come to you next week, John, as surely as victory came to the allied forces when you were fighting in WWII.

Oldest Batter Faced (week): Chipper Jones, 32 (76 years cumulative).
Oldest Batter Faced (year): Ken Griffey, Jr., 35 (79 years cumulative).
Youngest Batter Faced (week): Jose Reyes, 21. (John is a whopping 22 years older than this baby. Despite John’s massive edge in the experience department, Jose hit an RBI single, and later scored).
Youngest Batter Faced (year): The aforementioned Mr. Reyes.
Total Batters Faced (week): 6, who were a combined 96 years younger than John (avg. 16 years younger).
Total Batters Faced (year): 9, who are a combined 131 years younger than John (avg 14.5 years younger).

Jury Duty

A blow by blow account of performing a valuable civic duty.

Monday, 4/18/05 The Selection Process

9:00 I arrive at 71 Thomas Street in lower Manhattan, the location where I've been instructed to report. I'm 15 minutes late (due to confusing Broadway with West Broadway, go figure), but this doesn't seem to matter. I'm given a "juror questionairre" to fill out, and told to sit down. The room is filled with rows and rows of chairs, about 100 in all, and most of them are already taken. A video is playing in the front of the room, in which Jane Pauley is extolling the virtues of jury duty.

9:20 The court clerk, a middle-aged black woman, turns on the lights, and gives a brief rundown on what to expect from serving on a jury (selection process is a maximum of 2 days, trials are a maximum of 10 days). She is accomodating, patient, and polite (like all the city employees I came into contact with during the day), a refutation of the stereotype of city workers as being rude, distant, and petty. I notice a sign on the wall that says "Occupancy by more than 80 Persons is dangerous and unlawful". There are definitely more than 80 people in the room, but nothing about the situation seems dangerous or unlawful. We're all in this together.

9:56 The honorable Judge Gallagan makes a guest appearance in order to boost our self esteem. He is, surprisingly, an old white guy. He reminds us that "the jury system is one of our great assets" and that "the judges are you...you are the judge of the facts of this case". He exits to wild applause. Or indifferent silence. I forget which.

10:24 After doing nothing but hand in our jury summons', we are granted a 15 minute break. But really, the whole day has been a break thus far.

11:23 Finally, a case has been called in. The jury selection process will begin. We are told that the defendant will be the city of New York, so any city employees will be disqualified from the case. They then call 28 people at random. These 28 people will make up the jury pool for the case. I'm the 7th person called of the 28. We are told to line up in order against the wall, then taken into "Jury Room C", where we sit in the order in which we were called. It's like being in 3rd Grade all over again.

11:39 The attorneys for the case in question enter the room. The attorney for the plaintiff, a white, middle-aged man named Brian King, introduces himself. He then reads us a synopsis of the case in question: a "trip and fall" case, in which a 10 year old boy tripped and fell on the interior staircase of the city-owned apartment building where he and his mother lived. As a result of this fall, he suffered leg and ankle injuries that required surgery.

The attorney for the defense, a thirty-ish Asian woman, then introduces herself. She doesn't add anything to Mr. King's synopsis of the case. The clerk then comes into the room and leads us all in the "juror's oath", in which we pledge to be attentive and honest and all the other things that a good juror should be. After all that work, we are given another break, this one until 12:15.

12:15 Boredom time. We re-assemble in "Room C". Mr. King proceeds to question all 28 of us in order, asking questions about personal relationships to doctors or lawyers that we may or may not have, among other things. He makes it through 20 prospective jurors before we break...this time for lunch!

2:00 After lunch, we make our return to good 'ol "Room C". Mr. King finishes his questioning of the prospective jurors. Now it's the defense's turn. To do the same thing! The defense lawyer is more specific in her questioning of us prospective jurors, she asks each of us if we've ever had ankle injuries, and if we think the defense is automatically entitled to something since the case has gotten this far. At least this woman had some comedic value. She had the habit of responding to EVERYTHING that anyone said to her. For example, if someone replied that they were "Fine, thanks" after she asked "How are you today?", she would then say "you're welcome". Maybe you had to be there.

2:55 We get another break while the lawyers confer.

3:29 The moment of truth...we're called back to "Room C" to hear the final jury selections. This is a civil trial, so they are only picking 6 jurors (and two alternates). To my surprise, I was among those picked. Presumably, both of the lawyers thought I looked so good that they wanted to be able to stare longingly at me in court. The losers (those not picked for the case), are sent back into the jury pool. Me and my 7 priviledged compatriots stay in "Room C" to await further instructions.

4:09 The clerk comes into the room and gives us a paper with the info we need for the next day: at 10 a.m. we're to report to 60 Centre Street, Room 452, for "The LaBoy Case". I can't wait!!!

Next Week: The Trial!

Al Leiter ERA Qualification Update #2

In which we track everyone's favorite 39 year-old lefty, and his battle to qualify for and win the ERA crown.

Update #2 (4/12-4/17)

Al's ERA: 2.55
Innings Pitched: 17.2
Marlins Games: 12
Qualifies? Yes! (+5 2/3rds)

NL at a Glance
1. Dontrelle Willis o.oo

17. Jon Leiber 2.49
18. AL!
19. Brandon Webb 2.70

57. Javier Vazquez 11.77

Al qualifies, with over 5 innings to spare! While Al has his work cut out for him trying to catch wily teammate Dontrelle Willis for the ERA lead, he is certainly headed in the right direction (as opposed to hapless Mr. Vazquez, wilting in the Arizona sun).

Al's started two games last week. His first start was thoroughly mediocre, as he let up 3 runs in 5 innings in a 4-1 loss to the Phils. In those 5 innings, he threw 114 pitches! Al, you just can't be running up your pitch counts like that. High pitch counts mean a tired arm, and a tired arm means increased susceptibility to injury, and injuries mean not enough innings pitched to qualify for the title. Be careful!

Al returned to form on Saturday against his old team, the Mets. He went 7 innings and allowed just one run (while throwing 104 pitches). He left the game with a 2-1 lead, but his mates in the bullpen couldn't hold down the lead, and the Mets ended up winning 4-3. Tough luck there, Al. It was still a very encouraging outing, and lowered his ERA to it's present 2.55.

Al's next start is a rematch against the Mets on the 21st. He's looking for vengeance and victory and...well, he's a married man, so I guess he's already got the third "v".

Good luck Al, may you continue to qualify for the ERA title!

Remember, you can't spell Al Leiter without ERA!

Back Page Barometer Update 4/4-4/15

In which we gauge the popularity of NYC's major league club's, based on back-page tabloid coverage.

Baseball has dominated the Post and the Daily News since the season started, not surprisingly. What has been surprising has been the extent to which Yankees coverage has completely dominated, given the similar records of the two teams. Here are the tallies thus far:

Total Back Page Baseball Covers: 20 (Yankees 15, Mets 5)
Positive Coverage: 7
Negative Coverage: 13

By Paper:

Daily News: 11 (7 Yankees, 4 Mets)
Post: 9 (8 Yankees, 1 Mets)

By Team:

Yankees: 15 (7 positive, 8 negative) = 22 points (2 for each positive cover, 1 for each negative)
Mets: 5 (o positive, 5 negative) = 5 points

A few observations:

Can't the Mets get a break? When they were in the midst of a 5 game losing streak to start the season, they recieved three straight negative Daily News covers. But they haven't lost since, and as of this writing, have not recieved even one positive back page. At least the News pays at least some attention to the Mets, as the Post has seen fit to make them back-cover subjects exactly once ("Read It and Sweep" after the Mets lost three straight to the Reds to open the season).

On April 13th, both tabs took advantage of an off-day for both teams, and devoted their back covers to wondering what's wrong with the Yankees. After all of 7 games! Settle down, guys, 3-4 is not the end of the world.

I would suggest that both papers retire the headline "Thrown for A Looper", which is dragged out every time Braden Looper blows a save. It's going to get real old real quick. The News used it on April 5th (after Braden's opening-day meltdown), and both papers used it multiple times last year.

Headline of the Week: "Big Pussy", Post, April 6th.

Okay, this headline wasn't even about baseball, and it wasn't even on the back page (it was a front-pager about a Sopranos' star getting busted for domestic violence). But we'd like to pretend it was a reference to Rey Sanchez testing positive for steroids. What makes it funnier is that this was the only day the entire week that the Post didn't devote their front page to the Pope's death. Do devout Catholics buy papers that reference female genitalia on their front-page? Just how much contempt do they have for their readership, anyway?

Record of the Week

Record of the Week:

Dalek-Absence

If you say the title of this record three times fast, it sort of sounds like you're saying "absinthe". You'd have to be seriously fucked up on that liquorice flavored abomination in order to justify Absence's absence on any "best records of 2005" list.

Of course, another way you could justify such an omission is by admitting you have poor taste in music, and live a timid, sheltered existence. Either way.

That would be honest, and would give you something in common with this record. For Absence is an honest, 50 minute blast of sonic abrasiveness, over which the eponymous MC waxes pessimistic about the state of American society (in general), and the continued subordination of minority culture (in particular). His vocals are submerged beneath seemingly infinite layers of aural detritus: high-end guitar drone, murky subterranean bass, and nimble turntable scratching compete for space over the lurching, omnipresent beat.

The end result is a supremely heavy record, hip-hop taken so far beneath the surface that it becomes something else entirely. It's like Isis mixed with Techo Animal mixed with My Bloody Valentine mixed with Public Enemy mixed with some shit you've never heard in any context. In short, it's fucking awesome, and my favorite record of 2005 thus far.

The Franco-Files #1 (4/4-4/12)

- in which we track the exploits of Julio and John Franco, baseball’s two oldest players.

A new season has arrived for our heroes. 2005 marks the 21st season that Julio has worn a big league uniform (1982-1994, 1996-97, 1999, 2001-2005), and John’s 22nd (1984-2005). Julio is coming off his best season since 1996 (when he was a mere 38 years old). In 2004 he hit .309 in 320 at-bats for the Atlanta Braves. John is coming off of a less than stellar 2004 campaign, in which he went 2-7 with a 5.28 era. However, he held lefties to a .173 average, and that was good enough for the Astros, who signed him to a one year deal.

So how did Messrs. Julio and John fare in the first week of the ’05 campaign? Let’s take a look:

Julio appeared in 5 games (starting two of them), and went 5-13 (.385). In a nice bit of synergy for us here at Greased Poker Chips, his first at-bat of the year was a single against Al Leiter (who at age 39, is still 7 years younger than Julio). After going hitless in his next 6 at-bats, he closed out the week on a 4-6 tear, getting his first RBI and his first extra-base hit in the process. In the games in which he did not start, Julio reportedly sat in the dugout and regaled his teammates with tales of what life was like before the advent of automobiles or electricity.

Oldest pitcher faced: Al Leiter, 39. (That’s a cumulative 85 years in that match-up).

Youngest: Chad Cordero: 23 (Julio was in spring training with the Indians on the day this Nationals reliever was born).

Total pitchers faced: 9, who were a combined 125 years younger than Julio (avg. 13.8 years younger).


John, meanwhile, appeared in three games for Houston (who, like his former team the Mets, did not even have a franchise when he was born). Although John did not allow an earned run, these appearances were not exactly rousing successes. He only logged 2/3rds of an inning pitched total, batters hit .600 off of him (3-5), and he allowed 75% of inherited runners to score (3 of 4). The batter he did manage to retire was Ken Griffey Jr, twice. So, he is doing very well against injury-prone sluggers who have made a guest appearance on The Simpsons (a key stat when it comes to evaluating relievers). During down time in the bullpen, John worked on his memoirs. He finished the chapter which dealt with his attempts to patent the cotton gin before Eli Whitney.

Oldest batter faced: Ken Griffey, Jr., 35 (That’s a cumulative 79 years in that match-up).

Youngest: Sean Casey 30 (born during the summer of 74, when John was sitting at home wondering what high school would be like).

Total batters faced: 3, who were a combined 35 years younger than John (avg. 11.7 years younger).

Check back next Wednesday for a new update…

$150 Comes Cheap Sometimes

New York’s a town that’s full of money-making opportunities. One of the easiest ways to make some spare cash is to participate in a focus group. Essentially, a focus group is when a company hires an independent researcher to gauge the opinions of a select group of consumers, so the company can then adjust the marketing and/or design of the product accordingly.
These “select” consumers are generally from the company in question’s target demographic. This demographic obviously varies from company to company, but as a 26 year-old, married, white, male resident of Manhattan, I seem to be the sort of person that focus group recruiters are looking for. As a result, I have lately found it quite easy to bluff my way into focus group participation. All marketing professionals must bow to the white male, ages 25-49.
Recently, I’ve done focus groups for Target’s web page, Sam Adams beer (which sadly had nothing to do with actually drinking the beer), Naked Juice (which sadly had nothing to do with being naked), and the Wall Street Journal (which sadly had nothing to do with drinking beer naked). These groups were all approximately two hours in length, and ranged in pay from $75 (Target) to $150 (Wall Street Journal). As the Wall Street Journal was the most interesting and the most recent of the groups I have participated in, I’ll now go into some detail about the experience. It went a little something like this…

I. The Phone Interview

To get into most focus groups, you have to first pass a phone screening. Passing is easy, as all you have to do is exaggerate, distort, omit, and fabricate. Just like advertising! From past experience with these phone interviews (several of which I did not pass due to stupid, non-paying honesty), I knew what sort of things they are looking for in a potential participant. Primarily, a stable job, lucrative income, and familiarity with the product in question (keep in mind that they do not tell you what specific product the group is for. In the case of the Wall Street Journal, I was simply told “newspapers”). Accordingly, my “temp job in accounts payable” became an “accounting position at a real estate firm”, “$14 an hour” became “over $75,000 annual income”, and “I have no interest in reading newspapers beyond tabloid baseball stories” became “I subscribe to The New York Times and Business Week, in addition to making regular purchases of both the Financial Times and the Wall Street Journal”. It’s that simple.
Just when you think you’ve made it through the interview, you get hit with their final question: “What person, living or dead, would you like to have dinner with, and why?” Assuming they’d want the sort of answer a businessman would give, I said “President Bush, because I’d like to have some face time with a very powerful person”. That’s actually true, but in having dinner with Bush I would like to cover that motherfucker with mashed potatoes and gravy in much the same way that he and his administration covered up the truth regarding 9/11.*
My answers were apparently sufficient, as I passed the screening. I was told to report the following Tuesday to Advanced Focus, located on 42nd Street and Madison Ave. I was looking forward to it.

II. The Waiting Room

I arrived at Advanced Focus the following Tuesday, as specified. After checking in, the receptionist handed me a large stack of color photos and drawings, and told me to “pick out the one picture that best represents you as a person” (unfortunately, there were no photos of someone disinterestedly masturbating to The Price is Right). Looking through the pictures, I was perplexed. Which one represented me? Was it the surface of Jupiter? A traffic light? A business executive sleeping on a park bench? I finally settled on my selection, just as our group was being summoned inside. Showtime!

III. The Focus Group

This focus group, like all the focus groups I have ever done, took place in an ordinary-looking office conference room. At the head of the table sits the moderator, with the participants sitting along the sides. This room, however, is decidedly not ordinary, due to the presence of microphones planted in the ceiling, wall-mounted video cameras, and a two-way mirror behind the moderator. Behind that mirror lurk some of the most insidious individuals who live upon this Earth: advertising professionals. They’re taking notes.
I, along with my fellow focus group participants, am led into the room and told to sit down. We are given nametags. We are all white or Asian, and between 25 and 35. Our moderator, a short, middle-aged brunette woman with a lisp, introduces herself by showing a picture of a human brain, because “she likes to get inside people’s heads”. We then go around the room and introduce ourselves with our pictures. I listen to how Mike is represented by a seagull, and Jill is some sort of luxurious indoor swimming pool, and so on and so forth. I go last, and reveal my picture of a smiling middle aged couple on a porch. Their arms are around each other and they are wearing white masks over their mouths. I had some sort of justification for this.
That slightly bizarre opening exercise had me excited for the rest of the group, as a focus group at its best resembles some sort of avant-garde therapy session. I was not disappointed. After a fairly routine discussion of how each group member gets their news, our moderator then began our next exercise. Each participant was handed a deck of tarot cards, and instructed to “pick one card that represents the New York Times, and one card that represents the Wall Street Journal”. Whatever you say, lady. For the New York Times, I picked “The King” (as did most people in the group). The justification for this was that kings are powerful, arrogant, and prone to inbreeding. For the Wall Street Journal, I picked “The Tower”, in which a dark, phallic structure is being engulfed in flames as bodies burn beneath it. My reasoning here was that the Journal is aloof and dominated by a male perspective. It does not care about the plight of the common man, who was represented by the burning bodies beneath the tower. “But”, I added, “those in the tower do not realize that it is burning, and this is a metaphor for the obliviousness of those who do not realize that our entire economic system will soon collapse”. Spouting all this bullshit, I felt like I was in a freshman film studies class, pretending to find meaning in a bunch of abstract nonsense.
After another, more routine discussion (in which we were each given a copy of that day’s Journal, and asked what we found interesting and what we did not), it was time for a final exercise. We were divided into two groups of three, and were told to “Imagine that the Wall Street Journal is a party. What kind of party would it be?” Our moderator then handed each group a list of questions that elaborated further on this theoretical party. Who would be there? What kind of food would be served? What would the guests talk about? Interestingly, right after we were handed this worksheet, the moderator quickly took it back from us and crossed off the question “Who would clean up afterwards?” My guess is that the people behind the glass didn’t want to waste time with this question, since we all knew the answer: minorities! God bless those darker-skinned guys and gals, they really know how to mop!
Anyways, after presenting our opinions on what this party would be like (the consensus between both groups was that it would be a stuffy, luxurious gathering of old white guys and their liposuctioned wives), we were asked to then contrast this with what a “wallstreetjournal.com” party would be like. The consensus here was that the crowd would be younger and hipper. I imagined a bunch of pony-tailed assholes listening to the Chemical Brothers and doing coke off of their laptop screens. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
That just about wrapped things up. We were encouraged to take home our copies of the Journal, and summarily dismissed. I waved to my reflection in the two-way mirror, picked up a crisp Franklin and a crisper Grant at the reception desk as compensation for my time, and headed off into the Manhattan night.
I like to fool myself by thinking that my participation in these groups is somehow subversive, that I am fucking with the beast that is Advertising by wasting its time and taking its money. Really, though, I am just one more guy with an opinion. My cynicism and self-awareness can be analyzed and marketed right back to me. They’ll eventually find my weaknesses and exploit them, until the day when I receive an invitation for a Wall Street Journal party in the mail, and it actually sounds like a fun time. What tarot card best represents a sell-out?

*(Ironic,isn’t it? This radical talk by someone writing about his willingness to be a lying whore for corporate dollars.
–ed**)

**(Shut up, Ed.- ben)

Al Leiter ERA Qualification Update!

In which we track everyone's favorite 39 year old lefty, and his battle to qualify for and win the 2005 ERA crown...

(see April 4th post for more info)

Al's ERA: 1.59
Marlins Games: 6
Leiter IP: 5 2/3rds
Qualifies?: No (-1/3)

Al's first start of the year was a good one, as he let up only 1 run in 5 2/3rds of an inning, taking a no-decision in what was an eventual extra-inning loss to the Braves. His era stands at a stellar 1.59.

However, the early season is very trying on a pitcher's quest for ERA qualification, and Al currently is 1/3rd of an inning away from doing so. We here at Greased Poker Chips hope that is an early-season aberration, rather than an ominous harbinger of things to come.

Should Al pitch a mere 1 1/3rd inning tonight against the Phils, however, he will vaunt back into ERA qualifying status. Wish him luck as he takes on Brett Myers tonight at 7:05!

And remember, you can't spell Al Leiter without ERA!

Back Page Barometer

New York's a baseball-crazy town, no doubt about it. This city can easily support it's two major league franchises, the Mets and the Yankees. These teams aren't generally in direct competition with one another; they play in different leagues and different boroughs. They each have a distinct fan base as well: the Yankees and their legions of fat-necked meatheads and big money businessmen, the Mets and their working stiffs and self-loathing, solitary old men. Each team exists safely in it's own distinct world.

Yet, on a deeper, more meaningful level, these two squadrons are in direct competition with one another, for nothing less than the hearts and minds of the Big Apple as a whole. For when an NYC baseball team performs well, that team garners praise and adulation far outside the limited, depressing confines of WFAN and sports bars. They become celebrities whose exploits, on-field and off, are chronicled in meticulous detail. In short, they become heroes.

Both historically and currently, the Yankees are used to recieving the lion's share of such attention, while the Mets are left with the scraps of attention the lion did not want. This reality does not seem poised to change anytime soon, as the Yankees are gunning for their 11th straight post-season appearance, while the Mets are simply gunning for an above .500 season. ..

But in this spring of hope, hope springs eternal. Maybe this year, with the high-profile additions of Pedro, Beltran, and, um, Roberto Hernandez, the Mets will claim the coveted title of "NYC's Team".

What am I even getting at here? How can one even determine which team is officially "NYC's Team"? That's easy! The tabloids! The Post and the Daily News have their ink-stained fingers on the pulse of the city, and each day their respective back pages scream hysterically about baseball. The team that logs the most time as the back-page subject's of these reputable publications is "NYC's Team". It's that simple.

That's why we here at Greased Poker Chips have instituted the "Back Page Barometer". We log the back page sports headlines of each tabloid daily, and assign points to each team based on the attention they recieve. The scoring is as follows:

Positive back page coverage: 2 points for each paper.
Negative back page coverage : 1 point for each paper (negative attention is better that no attention at all!).

That's it. The team with the most points at the end of the season can be said to have had the most successful season, for it is that team that has become "NYC's Team".

Every Friday at Greased Poker Chips, tune in for an update on which team has garnered the most attention thus far, as well as for bonus features like "Headline of the Week" and "Bad Pun of the Week" (often one and the same).

It's gonna be interesting...

Record of the Week/ Weak

This is simple.

Music is one of the best things in the world. I love listening to music. So do you.

However, my opinions on recorded material which can generally be called "rock" are superior to the opinions of just about everyone else. I find that other people are interested in what I've been listening to, because they intrinsically know that if I'm devoting my time to it, then it must be special. I don't mess around.

Each week I'll highlight a record. It may be new. It may be old. That doesn't matter. What matters is that I like it. Therefore, you should also like it. There can be no disagreement on this issue.

On the flip side, each week I'll also be highlighting a record that only lame people listen to. That's my record of the weak. Stay clear of these at all costs, lest ye yourself wish to be known as a weak person.

Stay tuned...

The Franco-Files

Julio Franco (Atlanta Braves) : knock-kneed Dominican first baseman with a penchant for clutch hits and spending strike years in Japan.

John Franco (Houston Astros) : left-handed relief specialist from Staten Island with a penchant for looking like a fireman.

The only thing similar about these two baseball veterans is their name, right? Well, not quite. They are united not only in nomenclature and occupation, but by this key fact: THEY ARE THE TWO OLDEST PLAYERS IN BASEBALL! Julio, the senior of the two at 46 (!!!), was one of the players traded from the Phillies to the Indians in exchange for Von Hayes (in the infamous "5 for 1" deal of 1982*). John, 44, made his debut with the Reds in 1984, when Pete Rose was a Montreal Expo, his glory days as the Red's player-manager still ahead of him. Yet, these products of Reagan's first term are somehow still able to suit up and play baseball at the highest level. And lest we forget: THEY ARE BOTH NAMED J. FRANCO!

Is it the name? Are J. Franco's naturally prone towards freakish career longevity? Well, there's never been another J. Franco in MLB history. In fact, there's only been one other player with the last name of Franco, period. That would be, Matt, Julio's teammate on the Braves. Matt's no spring chicken himself at 35, but he's got a long way to go until he catches Messrs. John and Julio. Good luck, Matt.

We here at Greased Poker Chips are not going to let the onfield exploits of baseball's eldest statesmen go unpublicized. We're tracking Julio and John meticulously day-to-day, and each Wednesday we will present to you, the reader, free of charge, The Franco Files. Don't miss it.

*Hayes subsequently named his boat The 5 for 1. Also, his batting stance was nearly as freakish as Julio's.

Random NYC

"Where else can you do a half a million things, all at a quarter to three?"

This astute reference on the myriad possibilities available to those who live in NYC was made by noted philosopher and Chicago sports historian Huey Lewis. Mr. Lewis (Huey to his friends, Baby Huey to his mother, and some incomprehensible giant beast to any small mammal that happens upon him) was no doubt exaggerating, for to be in 500,000 places at once would be a staggering experience which can only be enjoyed by God. Still his point is as valid as a freshly laminated driver's license: NYC offers unparalled access to diverse, random, and absurd experiences.

Within this space each Tuesday, we'll be writing about recent events in our lives that, for one reason or another, could really only happen in NYC.

Stay tuned...

The Al Leiter Battle for ERA Qualification 2005!

Baseball is a game in which a player's individual accomplishments are taken very seriously. The most impressive of these accomplishments- such as Dimaggio's 56 Game hitting streak, or Jamie Quirk's 1.000 average and 4.000 slugging percentage with the Cleveland Indians in 1984- are ingrained in the memory banks of baseball fans both casual and rabid. However, we here at Greased Poker Chips seek to highlight a certain player's accomplishment that, while impressive, has somehow gone overlooked by the sporting world at large.

That accomplishment? New York Met Al Leiter and his heroic battle to qualify for the ERA title during the 2004 season. A glance at Al's stats for the year show he was a solid 10-8, with a even more solid 3.21 era. But let's do more than glance at these stats. Let's stare into the very depths of their rigidly logical soul.

Al only pitched 173 innings in an injury plagued 2004-his fewest since 1997-, and at various times throughout the year he was ineligible for the ERA leaderboard due to falling under the minimum innings pitched needed to qualify for said title. (To qualify for the ERA title, a pitcher needs to have pitched at least as many innings as his team has played games. For example, 55 games into the season, a pitcher must have pitched at least 55 innings to qualify for the title. To qualify at the end of the season, 162 innings need to have been logged. That's how many games are played).

Furthermore, before a late-season drop-off, Al's era was stellar. He was leading the league through the end of August (when he was qualifying, that is!). How sad, then, that the public at large totally ignored Al's back and forth battle with the NL era leaderboard. For what a struggle it was, an aging 38 year-old lefty in the fight of his life: attempting to simultaneously qualify for and win the ERA crown. Ultimately, he succeeded in the former, failed in the latter (he was 9th). But he showed spirit and grit the whole way through, the same sort of spirit that no doubt prompted the New York Press Photographer's Association to honor him with their "Good Guy" Award in 1998.

This year, Al's back with the Florida Marlins (he and Darren Daulton helped bring them their first world champion in 1997), and his determination to qualify for (and perhaps win) the ERA title is stronger than ever. We just know it! Wish him luck, as he begins his quest on Wednesday, April 6th, against the Atlanta Braves.

Here at Greased Poker Chips, we pledge to Al and baseball fans worldwide that his fight for qualification will be chronicled in exacting detail. Check here every Monday for up-to-date info on THE AL LEITER BATTLE FOR ERA QUALIFICATION 2005!

Remember, you can't spell "AL LEITER" without "ERA".

Al Leiter FAQs coming soon.