I live and work near Hartford, Connecticut. Right in the fabled borderland between Red Sox and Yankees country. Being originally from the UK, American sports have never been easy for me to get into. Especially baseball. I mean, I don't even really like cricket, and that's the closest thing we have in England to it. Most of my early years in the US were spent in Massachusetts, so the Red Sox was the only game in town. When we moved to Connecticut it was a pleasant surprise to actually live in a place where Yankees fans lived. Bright lights, big city, all that jazz. I'm a Manchester United fan, so the Yankees are a bit like the Man U of MLB (just as the Cowboys are the Man U of NFL); biggest stadium, most fans, most succesful club, etc. Then, one day, I noticed a lad at work wearing a baseball cap with a round logo bearing a blue NYC skyline and the word "Mets" in orange. I'd heard of the Mets, obviously, but was surprised that more people in Connecticut didn't support them. Who, then, were the people buying tickets to Mets games? My interest in the Sox-Yanks borderland dissolved as I began to wonder about the difference between fans of the two New York baseball teams. What set them apart from one another? Was it like Manchester United and Manchester City fans back home? And if so, were United really the equivalent of the Yankees, or was there more to learn here?
It's no coincidence that the more successful a team is, the better is their stadium, their presence in media, and even their logo. As a kid, I marveled at Manchester United's cantilever roof, and the striking club crest that featured a red devil. Everything was, just, well perfect. But it's a chicken-and-egg situation. I used to think teams were better because their stuff was better, but that was because I was a child and I didn't properly understand money. Now I'm an adult (or pretending to be) I can see exactly why these things are so. Or can I? When I arrived here in the late-80s, I was struck by the Yankees pinstriped uniforms; they looked superior to other teams' uniforms, even other teams that wore pinstripes. I couldn't understand why baseball culture was steeped in this retro look, but the New York Yankees at least had transcended it by perfecting it. Then I saw the Mets logo; the clashing colors that, as a sign-painter, I was taught you should never mix. Blue and orange?! What the-?
Then I read the history of New York baseball and saw that it was a tribute to the Brooklyn Dodgers and New York Giants, whose colors were blue and orange, respectively. But you probably know that. Once I studied the Mets logo more closely I discovered it was round because it was in fact a baseball, complete with red (sorry, orange) stitching. The Brooklyn/NYC skyline fit so well into it, as did the bridge at the bottom. Then it hit me; the Mets logo was actually better than the Yankees logo! What could this mean? The colorful little metropolitan world represented by the logo captured Brooklyn and New York's vibrancy, while the Yankees' top hat and baseball bat looked more suited to Broadway than the Queens Highway. Perhaps those pampered Yanks have been so thoroughly infiltrated by day-trippers and corporate ignoramuses they've forgotten what the Big Apple is all about?
One thing that NYC is about is diversity, versatility. When I saw that Yankee Stadium – the old as well as the new – had been used to stage rock concerts, I was surprised. Unfortunately, no matter how many concerts the Yankees would ever stage, they would never trump the Mets, whose Shea Stadium played host to the Beatles not once but TWICE. Beat that, you top-hatted bufoons.
So, next time people start lecturing me on the famous Sox-Yanks rivalry, I'll ask them what they think of the Mets, in particular the logo and the Beatles concerts, and maybe the wild color scheme. Forget the baseball itself; it's not always about that. Well, not in this case, anyway…it's about soul. You've either got it or you ain't, I guess…
