Bat Boys, Bat Boys, Whatcha Gonna Do

A few quick notes before I head out of town to spend some time at the home of the band whose song is referenced in the title of today’s post:

1) Several readers including David reminded me that I (and the mets.com roster I ripped off) left Jenrry Meija (I had to have spelled that name wrong) off the spring training roster where he should be noted to be wearing No. 76.

2) I neglected to mention this website recently passed its 11th birthday on Feb. 22. That’s in part because I made such a wreck of the 10th birthday bash, neglecting to make it all the way down the ‘top 10’ countdown as promised. Shameful. But I haven’t stopped doing this. Shortly after I return next week, the website will be freshly updated with a new look & feel I’d been working on for the last month with the crack team at Crooked Number. The changes — necessitated mainly by an upgrade of the operating system that would make the current look go kablooey — may look plain at first, but is much more powerful beneath the hood and is only a start.

3) I first got this question a few years ago, and didn’t know what to say then or now: What will the Bat Boys be wearing in 2010? As I recall the history, Met bat boys went numberless until 1986 (maybe 85?) and have in most years worn the figure of the year — except in 1999 when they skipped ahead to 00 so as not to mess with Turk Wendell’s mojo. Despite the second-straight curious spring training issue to Andy Green, it seems as if No. 10 will be available this year, but I’m thinking maybe 00 might be better. I’ve never been a fan of the ‘BB’ designation some teams use and I’d hate to see it here. Thoughts?

4) I’m again happy to have been asked to contribute an article for the 2010 Maple Street Press Mets Annual, which is arriving on area newsstands now. My contribution — a look at 2009’s injuries and their place in team history, got a terrific boost from longtime MBTN contributor Jason E., whose comprehensive history of the Mets disabled list made it all work. Did you know who the all-time leader for separate trips to the disabled list is? What body part has been injured most often? Who was the first Met ever to go on the DL? Then pick this thing up now. Also, there’s good articles.

5) We’re scheduling another Amazin’ Tuesday March 23 at Two Boots Tavern on the Lower East Side. Deets to come.

  • Twitter
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Technorati
  • Reddit
  • Yahoo Buzz
  • StumbleUpon

One comment

  1. Jon Springer says:

    Tue, 03/02/2010 – 10:29pm — gored82
    Smaller than minutiae…

    I love the minutiae of uniform numbers that we discuss on here as much as anyone, but personally, I’m not in the least concerned with the numbers worn by bat- and ballboys/girls, LOL! In an age of less formality, they might as well wear shorts and non-numerical Mets tops that aren’t necessarily jerseys…

    Tue, 03/02/2010 – 11:27pm — Ranjrz5
    This’d likely never be

    This’d likely never be implemented, but how about having the batboys wear 86 and 69?

    Thu, 03/04/2010 – 12:08pm — Anonymous (not verified)
    Ballboys/Girls

    Don’t the ballboys/girls on the foul lines already do the shorts/blue shirts?
    I personally like the idea of “BB” for the bat boys. Keep it simple & don’t change it every year.
    Ranjrz5 – Wishful thinking on my part, but what happens when we win another?

    Fri, 03/05/2010 – 9:46am — Anonymous (not verified)
    If I remember correctly, in

    If I remember correctly, in the 80s, Mets Bat Boys wore an un-numbered uniform with the work “Bat Boy” stitched on the back where a player’s name plate would be.
    Maybe a move to that would suffice.

    Mon, 03/08/2010 – 3:32pm — Arthur (not verified)
    Bat Boy “number”

    I personally prefer “Bat Boy” with the name plate and no number.

    Mon, 03/08/2010 – 3:32pm — Arthur (not verified)
    Bat Boy “number”

    I personally prefer “Bat Boy” with the name plate and no number.

    report to Mollom
    It appears it will be “00”

    Submitted by Glenn (not verified) on Sun, 04/04/2010 – 2:47pm.
    It appears it will be “00” for this year.

    report to Mollom
    Thanks!

    Submitted by Jon Springer on Mon, 04/05/2010 – 6:18am.
    Thanks for that info

Leave a Reply to Jon Springer Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *