Two weeks ago the NY Times Fashion section had a ridiculous article about the rush of fair-weather fans to the Mets. Now we have a similar, slightly less ridiculous article, not from the Times's Fashion section, but from New York magazine.
Stephen Rodrick's theme is that the Mets are more "fun" than the Yankees. Well, duh, this has ALWAYS been the case. Okay, not always, not when the Mets have been God awful, but nobody roots for the Yankees because the team is fun. "Rooting for the Yankees is like rooting for US Steel", was a saying back in the 50s. Yankee fans don't care if the team has 'fun'. The Yankees are 'professional' - like hitmen. Yankee fans want a team that will win - big. Total annihilation is what Yankee fans want, not 'fun'.
Rodrick goes on a fantasy trip to late October and has the Mets playing the Yankees for the World Series. He predicts the Mets will win in six games? Why? Because the Mets are more fun.
It's not impossible (at least not to me even after the worst ten days of the season), but it seems pointless to write a long (and it is long) article detailing how the Yankees are better to then just choose the "feel-good" team. Let's face it, if fun teams won with any regularity the Yankees wouldn't have won a quarter of last century's titles. Ultimately, Rodrick's only slightly better than Andrew Mayer, the "feel-good" fool Met fan, erstwhile Yankee fan, from the NY Times's fashion section.
