Long after the game had ended and the fans had left, the giant scoreboard in center field of the new Yankee Stadium glowed with an image of the golden World Series trophy. A message below it read, “Boss, this is for you.”

Location Scout: New Yankee Stadium.

You know the type of stories the paper is running — the ones where it takes like six reporters to go out and interview yahoos who will say stuff about how Philadelphia is “a nothing city” (I often wonder whether people outside of New York actually care about New York as much as people in New York want to believe people outside of New York care about New York) or that the Phanatic mascot isn’t even as cool as the “retarded” Mr. Met mascot (classy, printing that quote). I almost want the Yankees to lose just to chasten the Post.

As Lee continued to shut down the Yankees’ offense over the course of the game — while the Phillies’ Chase “WFC” Utley hit not one but two home runs against Yankees ace C.C. Sabathia — it was tough to resist that time-worn cliche of “that’s why they play the game.” And sometime last night — probably after Lee struck out A-Rod for the third time — it occurred to me that a Yankees World Series loss would lessen the sting of a Bloomberg victory: The Yankees could be the sacrificial lambs for the sins of Michael Bloomberg.

If Bill Thompson can’t fulfill the role of underdog, then maybe the Phillies can. It will prove that maybe you can’t just spend hundreds of millions to win. It will put the elite in their place. It will shut up the Post! And should this all transpire, I want to believe that Bloomberg sycophantically hanging around the Yankees clubhouse on Sunday night and pandering to fans in Times Square on Wednesday will be the curse that catalyzed the team’s World Series failure.

. . . .

Speaking of the Post, let’s keep picking on the Post. The paper’s noxious endorsement of the mayor hinged on three areas — education, crime and the city’s finances.

On education, the Post’s editorial board argues that “Mike Bloomberg will be remembered as the mayor who brought accountability to the system. Supervisors, principals, teachers, students — all are now expected to show results. And they have, often spectacularly.” Let’s put it into perspective. Bloomberg put the board of education under the control of the mayor, which allows voters to punish a mayor for an under-performing system. That’s nice if you’re a lazy voter, and can’t be bothered to pay attention to the machinations of the school system, much less figure out which board members to vote for when school board elections come up. But I question whether this mayor — or any mayor — can really take credit for success in the school system. Bloomberg knows this, which is why they’ve been puffing up the test scores, this despite questionable results (and I’m assuming there’s a perfectly good reason why the NAEP scores for New York City are going to be delayed two weeks). Bloomberg shouldn’t oversell mayoral control, and he shouldn’t go after Thompson for an under-performing school system during Thompson’s tenure as board president when the truth is much more complicated than that. Look at it this way — is it Bloomberg’s fault that the Department of Buildings was apparently infiltrated by the mafia? Hey, now that I think about it, maybe Bloomberg should be held accountable — goose, gander, etc. At least Board of Education incompetence didn’t cause actual deaths . . .

On crime, the Post writes “Bloomberg and Commissioner Ray Kelly took a crime rate that already was declining dramatically and drove it to levels not seen since the ’60s. And they did so even while deploying significant resources into counterterrorism — helping to keep New York safe from another 9/11.” You don’t even have to read that closely — “a crime rate that was already declining.” Do you really think a mayor has much control over the crime rate? If so, then you’re much more idealistic than I am, though I’m guessing you probably also haven’t watched all that much of The Wire either. As for counterterrorism — well, for argument’s sake, let’s say the mayor actually does get out there, Jack Bauer-like, to keep us all safe. Actually, no, let’s not, because that is another absurd argument (though are you really impressed by the NYPD’s spurious sting operations and bungled investigations?). What’s more, it’s offensive to the many municipal and federal law enforcement officials who actually do their best to keep us safe to act like the mayor is somehow responsible for our safety. Giuliani’s recent Giuliani-like boasting about Bloomberg’s terror-fighting prowess was the quintessence of this asinine argument.

On finances, the Post writes “Eight years ago, Bloomberg took a city driven deep into recession by 9/11 and helped bring it back. Last June, he delivered a budget that cut spending by $1.5 billion — even as Albany’s budget grew by 10 percent” before acknowledging that the mayor’s deals with the unions may bankrupt the city (in so many words). I don’t buy that the city was “driven deep into recession” after September 11, 2001 because — especially compared with the current recession — the one following 9/11 wasn’t all that deep. And — let’s be crystal clear — mayors don’t fix the economy. Mayors may fix potholes and sanitation schedules, but they sure don’t do much for a worldwide economy. Even really smart businessmen like Michael Bloomberg. As for the second claim — that Bloomberg delivered a budget that cut spending — well, OK, maybe he cut spending a little. But A) I’m not convinced the budget savings weren’t merely the result of illusory accounting, since it’s easy to squirrel away or otherwise conceal $1.5 billion of a nearly $60 billion budget — and we’ll see how he manages a budget in 2010, should he make it that far; and B) you’re really comparing the city to what they do in Albany? Sounds like a backhanded compliment to me . . .

But you have to like an endorsement that starts out saying “It can be hard to warm to Bloomberg’s governing style, and we have little patience for his often arrogant nanny-state meddling in New Yorkers’ private lives.” Nice.

The Times’ Bloomberg endorsement — hidden in the Saturday paper, by the way — works similar debate-club style gymnastics to come to a conclusion. Their lede is absurdly fawning: “The real test of any mayor is how well the city works. In his eight years in office, Mayor Michael Bloomberg has managed to make the unpredictable city of New York work astonishingly well.” Wow — “astonishingly”? Were you at any point “astonished” by how well the city ran during Bloomberg’s tenure?

Second paragraph: “Mr. Bloomberg has been a first-rate steady hand during unsteady times. He guided the city out of the post-9/11 recession, then tucked away money during the boom years that followed.” “Guided the city out of the post-9/11 recession” sounds familiar to what the Post wrote. Is this taken from bullet points or something? We’ll see just how much money has been “tucked away” — I question whether it will be anywhere near what is supposed to be needed to plug a 2011 budget gap — but it is interesting to note that candidate Thompson spoke out last year for an actual rainy day fund, and not just raiding random accounts.

And check out this important point: “He has run the $60 billion government with a keen attention to accountability and efficiency. He has chosen some of the best people in the country to work for him, and he has mostly let them do their jobs. As a result, many city services operate better than they have for years. The garbage mostly disappears on time.”

The garbage “mostly disappears on time.” Again — wow. If that’s the case, why not go for a fourth term? What else here . . . oh, “Public education is better over all” (no real data or argument to back that up) and “Crime is down under Raymond Kelly, the police commissioner” — at least they didn’t try to say that Bloomberg actually “drove crime levels down,” like the Post wrote.

Both editorials feel the need to admonish Bloomberg’s churlishness. That’s not insignificant. The Times writes, “Finally, like others who have not always agreed with the mayor, we worry about his difficulty brooking dissent.” I think they are talking about mayor’s leadership qualities, especially vis a vis building consensus, which Bloomberg is not good at and which is one of the few traits that actually matters in an executive. Take his West Side Stadium defeat and failed congestion pricing proposal — two initiatives that would have been cornerstones of his development/job creation and environmental record. Those failures can’t all be due to a recalcitrant state legislature (or even Sheldon Silver). There’s a pattern there, and that pattern shouldn’t be relegated to near the end of a lukewarm endorsement.

. . . .

You want to read something funny? Compare the Observer’s endorsement with the Times’ endorsement. First the Observer (emphasis added):

The mayor’s record speaks for itself. Critics complain that voters are being brainwashed by the mayor’s free-spending campaign, but Mr. Bloomberg’s popularity has more to do with his accomplishments than with the quality of his television commercials. His place in history was ensured the moment he took office, because on January 1, 2002, the city still was recovering from the attacks of 9/11. The city was on edge, emotionally and fiscally, on that January morning. Mr. Bloomberg helped lead the city from its despair with a combination of reassurance, compassion and financial acumen.

In the years since, Mr. Bloomberg has defied conventional wisdom, as he and Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly continued to drive down crime even after the historic decreases under Rudolph Giuliani. He told us to hold him accountable for the performance of the city’s public schools, and he is now reaping the benefits of a school system that no longer is dysfunctional, unaccountable and unsafe. He returned the city to its rightful place as a leader in public health through his campaigns against smoking and trans-fats. He recruited capable deputies and let them do their jobs.

Then the Times (again, emphasis added):

What makes the mayor stand out is not his political skill, although he has come a long way since his first clumsy days in office. He has run the $60 billion government with a keen attention to accountability and efficiency. He has chosen some of the best people in the country to work for him, and he has mostly let them do their jobs. As a result, many city services operate better than they have for years. The garbage mostly disappears on time. The police and fire departments respond quickly. Mr. Bloomberg’s 311 phone line allows New Yorkers to complain to a live human being. Often, they even see tangible results.

Public education is better over all — although parents still need more access to their children’s teachers and schools. The mayor’s new complaint line for parents should help, as will other changes imposed by the Legislature. But in a third term, the mayor and his team should still work harder to listen to those who hand over their children each morning to his educators.

Crime is down under Raymond Kelly, the police commissioner, although there is concern again about stop-and-frisk actions, which seem to focus too heavily on Hispanics and African-Americans. Mr. Bloomberg also has been a national leader in gun control.

The mayor’s environmental efforts — stalled in Albany — show admirable concern about the city’s future. And he has worked hard to improve the city’s health — most effectively with the smoking ban.

The Post endorsement actually sounds even more similar to the Observer’s language on crime: “Bloomberg and Commissioner Ray Kelly took a crime rate that already was declining dramatically and drove it to levels not seen since the ’60s.” The “accountability” portions in the Post and Observer endorsements sound similar as well. All three endorsements sort of lob up there the same hackneyed reasons to vote for the mayor. All three sound like stupid bullet points. None seem serious.

The largest issue for most voters is the third term nonsense — another “not insignificant” concern, but the Post brushes it off: “No doubt, some New Yorkers are angry about how Mayor Mike used his considerable resources to having them set aside to allow him to run again. It was a characteristic display of Bloombergian hubris, and we suspect that it will cost him on Election Day.” The Times doesn’t mind that the term limit issue went down the way it did because the editorial board happens to agree with the outcome (I recall similar arguments during the Iraq War and subsequent failure to uncover WMD). Instead, the Times somehow believes that allowing every city councilmember, borough president, the public advocate, comptroller and mayor to run again somehow offers voters “more choices” — and they’re right; after all is said and done, voters will get precisely one more choice. It’s Orwellian logic. The Daily News makes the same argument in its endorsement.

. . . .

But let’s move to real talk. The real problem with the third term isn’t that Bloomberg either bought off or wielded power to influence the elite — the editorial boards, the power players — to accept the proposal to ignore term limits. The most egregious thing is that Bloomberg poisoned the democratic well for those of us who aren’t in roles of power, and that will have a much longer effect on the city. When voter apathy is low everywhere, but especially in sclerotic New York (cf. eight percent turnout for last month’s runoff, a vote that actually had a significant outcome), it sends a bad message. And it doesn’t just send a bad message to educated, older voters who will participate anyway (and continue to vote in years to come) but rather to those who don’t see a reason to participate in the first place. How many youths — even people into their 30s — have come of age politically during Bloomberg’s tenure, and developed their ideas about democratic participation while he steamrolled through $200 million-plus to get himself elected? How will this third-term charade affect their ideas about democracy? Bloomberg and his supporters (Bono! Shilpa! Cherry!) haven’t answered for this or even acknowledged it. We deserve better.

. . . .

But what if the unthinkable happens? Is a Bloomberg victory really a foregone conclusion? Remember the Phillies. For one bright, shining moment last night, the Phillies reminded Yankees fans “that’s why they play the game.”

And if somehow both the Yankees and Bloomberg lose, then that would be epic. New York Magazine will craft a trend piece on the end of New York. Spike Lee could make a film about it, just like he did with 1977. Howard Wolfson will walk away looking like a huge dick. And maybe, just maybe, the rest of the country will breathe a huge sigh of relief knowing that New Yorkers are not nearly as vapid as they appear! It will be a victory for all. So go vote Tuesday. You know what to do.

See also: Bloomberg For Mayor 2009.

The sight of the Phillies’ Pedro Martinez pitching against his former team was supposed to be the most unusual aspect of the game. But that notion was quickly proved wrong before the top of the first inning was over, only to be reinforced exactly three hours later when the game ended on an unassisted triple play with the potential tying runs in motion. It was the first unassisted triple play to end a game since 1927, and only the 15th in major league history, according to the Elias Sports Bureau.

As the mayor’s game improves, ever so incrementally, golf is finding its way into his conversations, public and private, as he invokes the sport as a metaphor for government and life.

. . .

Still, his unbridled fervor for a game associated with the country club set has occasionally landed him in hot water. During his weekly radio address in 2006, Mr. Bloomberg was asked to name a typical job performed by illegal immigrants. He immediately thought of golf.

“You and I are beneficiaries of these jobs,” the mayor told his co-host, John Gambling, adding, “Who takes care of the greens and the fairways in your golf course?” The remarks drew howls of protests.

And at a civic meeting in Canarsie, a working-class section of Brooklyn, earlier this year, homeowners interrogated the mayor about rising taxes and living costs. At one point, Mr. Bloomberg asked how many golfers were in the audience — and the answer appeared to be zero.

Beneath the civility and protocol that dictate life at City Hall lies a patchwork of baseball passions, resentments and rivalries that the public seldom sees. Forget fault lines of party or borough: The true divide is whether your team wears pinstripes, orange and blue, or even (horrors!) the dreaded crimson stockings.

And as is common with the Council, idiosyncrasies and oddities abound: Among all New Yorkers, for example, Yankees fans outnumber Met loyalists by nearly two to one, according to polls. But among the council members it is a different story: The number of Mets partisans exceeds Yankee supporters, 18 to 13, according to a survey of members by The New York Times.

. . .

Mr. de Blasio and Erik Martin Dilan of Bushwick, Brooklyn, have had a running bet for six years. If the Red Sox win the American League East division, Mr. Dilan buys Mr. de Blasio a steak at Peter Luger Steak-house. If the Yankees win, Mr. de Blasio buys the steak.

In 2004, when the Red Sox overcame a three-game deficit to the Yankees to earn a spot in the World Series, Mr. de Blasio took matters a step further: He required Mr. Dilan to wear a Red Sox cap at a Council meeting, rise and make a speech praising the Boston club.

Then there are those for whom support is contingent:

Councilwoman Helen D. Foster of the Bronx said that she used to root for the Yankees “before they destroyed my community,” referring to the construction of the team’s new $1.5 billion stadium, which replaced public tennis and basketball courts, baseball and soccer fields, and a running track with smaller parks.

And don’t trust anyone who doesn’t root for someone because people who don’t like baseball are scary:

Councilman Mathieu Eugene said that although he is not a fan, he respects anyone who plays sports “because it’s a healthy habit.”

And Councilman Simcha Felder of Brooklyn, the impish former tax auditor who heads the Council’s Committee for Government Operations, explained his lack of affinity for either team this way: “Do I look like a person who watches people play?”

For the adult kickball teams battling it out in front of Public School 142 on the lower East Side this week, the game is about bonding with friends new and old, getting some open air exercise and reliving long-forgotten schoolyard exploits.

. . .

“It makes you feel like you are 10 years old,” said Ryan Stuczynski, 27, a banker and kickball player who also moonlights as a paid umpire for the league. He says the players take the game pretty seriously, even though they are on a playground.

“People are pretty adamant,” he said. “I try to run down the line and show everyone that I am into it, too.”

At the new Yankee Stadium, deaf fans can experience “everything” — even the boos.

. . .

When ex-Yankee and current Cleveland Indian pitcher Carl Pavano was announced, the Bronx boobirds were out in force.

As the jeers fell on the chronically injured righty, the centerfield scoreboard read: “Number 44, Carl Pavano [Crowd Boos].”

The captioning is done by a person, not a computer program, said team spokeswoman Alice McGillion.

“Everything that happens goes up there,” she said.

Location Scout: New Yankee Stadium.

But the thing is that when you inflate ticket prices of sporting events to absurd heights, people then start expecting something more than “a day at the ballpark.” In short, they want a performance. And then it becomes a case of Dance, Monkey, Dance:

The new Yankee Stadium was spotless and the weather stunning, but the Bombers stunk it up in The Bronx yesterday, subjecting their fuming fans to a putrid performance against the Indians, who scored an eye-popping 22 runs.

The loss — one of the worst in team history — was the Yankees’ second in three games in their new $1.5 billion ballpark.

But this one stung the Pinstripe faithful, who forked over as much as $2,625 to see the pitiful play, like few ever before.

“It’s a tragedy. This is the worst game I’ve ever seen,” said a seething Erich Wald, 28, of Toms River, NJ.

“You can’t afford to buy anything at this Stadium,” he added, “and the players are going to go out and have $50 steaks when it’s over.”

Jon Brawn, 26, of White Plains, couldn’t agree more.

“I woke up this morning expecting to see something great in this brand-new Stadium,” Brawn said, “and what I got was a calamity.”

. . .

“I paid $10 a beer to see this chop-shop team? They suck!” cried Shawn McCarthy, 28, of Hoboken, as he fled during the seventh-inning stretch.

“George Steinbrenner,” he added, “should take down ticket prices if we’re just gonna see a home-run derby by the Indians.”

A couple that had trekked all the way from West Palm Beach, Fla., to check out their favorite team’s spanking-new digs said they, too, were leaving with a sour taste in their mouths.

“I’ve been a fan since 1958,” said Fred Bingiano, 57. “We used to come back in the ’90s, and it was $36 a ticket. Today, we paid $350 each.”

His wife Deborah, 45, was just as disgusted.

“Families can’t come together anymore,” she noted before speaking for a lot of disaffected fans by tossing out the quintessential New York judgment: “Fuhgeddaboutit.”

Location Scout: New Yankee Stadium.

With a concrete wall turning much of right field into a mystery, Picone and McNevin were far from thrilled with their seats [in Section 239, one of two blocks of seats, along with Section 201, that flank the Mohegan Sun Sports Bar in center field, leaving a heavily obstructed view of the outfield with regular season ticket prices of $5]. “But for that price,” Picone said, “it was definitely worth it to be here.”

They were helped out by three televisions bolted to the wall of the sports bar that showed a live feed of the game, though many fans said a few extra screens would have been appreciated, particularly in the glare of the sun. Still, they could make out enough of Jorge Posada’s long drive to know it was a home run once it disappeared from their own view of the game.

For the fans in the bleachers who did not have ticket plans, the afternoon was more expensive. Earlier this week, tickets for Sections 239 and 201 were selling for over $200 on StubHub, without the sellers’ necessarily mentioning that the view was obstructed. Though the Yankees had previously recognized that these seats were not ideal and lowered the price for them, independent marketplaces like StubHub and eBay leave it up to the sellers to disclose whether or not a view is obstructed.

That is how a visibly upset Adrian Rea, a Yankee fan from Binghamton, N.Y., wound up spending $1,200 for four tickets in Section 201. Rea had no idea that he would not be able to see right field.

“If I’d known, I wouldn’t have bought them,” he said. “I would have even paid more if I could have had seats that weren’t obstructed.”

Sitting in the row in front of Rea, Scott Placona, 26, jumped in. He had bought his ticket for $250 from a scalper 10 minutes before the game and insisted that it was worth every penny — just to be able to tell his grandchildren he was at the first regular-season game at the new Yankee Stadium. What did it matter that he couldn’t see left field?

Location Scout: New Yankee Stadium.

For a night, Queens was the hot spot in town and New York glowed orange and blue. The Mets, not the Yankees, opened their gleaming new ballpark first, and Citi Field was primped and primed for the occasion, as if it were preparing for a date. Monday was Citi Field’s night to shine, and the Mets, after two rehearsals and a week on the road, were eager to show it off.

Reality soon intruded, however, and the Mets bumbled their way to a 6-5 loss to San Diego, the game turning for the second straight day on an outfield mishap. Long after Mike Pelfrey got his cleat stuck in the dirt, falling off the mound, and Jose Reyes slid past second base, Ryan Church misplayed Luis Rodriguez’s sixth-inning fly ball into a three-base error.

Almost fittingly, Pedro Feliciano balked in the eventual winning run, and the Mets’ final 10 hitters went down in order. In a somewhat comical twist, two of their bullpen castoffs — Duaner Sanchez and Heath Bell — closed out San Diego’s win.

. . .

After throwing out the final pitch at Shea on Sept. 28, Tom Seaver and Mike Piazza left through the center-field gate. They entered Citi Field with their arms locked, chatting and waving on the long, slow walk toward the mound.

Nervous he would bounce the pitch, Seaver threw a strike. A few minutes later, at 7:11 p.m., Pelfrey threw a first-pitch strike to Jody Gerut. The next strike he threw landed in the right-field stands, Gerut hooking a 1-1 pitch inside the foul pole for the first regular-season homer at Citi Field.

According to the Elias Sports Bureau, Gerut is the first player to lead off a game with a homer in the first game at a new stadium.

Location Scout: Citi Field.