As the 1960s ended, while New York had its share of sports superstars, this was not the case in baseball, where greatness was most easily glimpsed during Yankees Old Timers games.
The Yankees had to brag about the next Mantle (Bobby Murcer) and a young catcher named Thurman Munson, and Mel Stottlemyre was an example of steady and quiet excellence, but that was it.
The Mets? Only one player truly stood out. He was the best ballplayer NY had. Tom Seaver.
One could sense even in 1969 that Seaver was Cooperstown-bound. To go 25-7 and excel in the age of Gibson and Marichal was something. There were pretty good Mets, such as Jerry Koosman, but there was only one great Met in 1969 ... Tom Seaver.
Although I most clearly identified as a Yankees fan, our household had none of that Yankees-Mets rivalry. My mom was a Mets fan, because she'd been a Dodgers fan (pay attention, gf!).
I even predicted that the Mets would make the World Series in our student newspaper (take note, @GregLogan1 and @OysterBayBomber) in an issue that came out just as the Mets were beating up on the Cubs at Shea.
Yes, I was a sports reporter. Kinda.
I loved watching Seaver pitch, largely because of his mechanics and because he reminded me of just how much thinking went into pitching. I was always struck by how he came out of his delivery ready to field his position.
But there were two other things about Seaver I loved.
First, he was intelligent. Very intelligent and thoughtful. Along with Bill Bradley, he stood as a role model of how smart guys who thought before they spoke could play ball.
Second, he wasn't afraid to offer his opinions on politics. He wasn't loud, but he was assertive, and he had a mind of his own.
You'll hear a lot about Seaver the ballplayer over the next several days, but I recall how on the eve of the '69 series Seaver said that it was time for the United States to get out of Vietnam.
He promised to place an ad in the @nytimes proclaiming that if the Mets could win the World Series, the United States could get out of Vietnam.
He didn't need to do that. He didn't need to risk that.
But he used his platform to express his views.
So I always thought Tom Seaver was a pretty good role model.
Coming from a Yankees fan ... well, need I say more?
Time and again critics of Ulysses S. Grant's generalship claim that, above all else, he was "Grant the Butcher," who prevailed because of his superiority in resources (which was seemingly endless) despite a certain mindlessness and dullness.
Grant's supporters counter this charge largely in a statistical fashion. They compare the percentage of Grant's losses versus the percentage of losses suffered by other generals, including Robert E. Lee.
Sometimes these analyses focus on the 1864 Overland Campaign, which in the minds of some people is the only campaign Grant ever fought ... the claims of butcher rely mostly on May-June 1864.
Today's the 160th anniversary of one of the most misunderstood battles of the American Civil War ... Cold Harbor.
The story of the battle has turned into a myth that in turn has long shaped the image of Ulysses S. Grant's generalship.
Make no mistake about it ... Cold Harbor was a significant setback for Grant and US forces during the Overland Campaign. Several US commanders performed poorly that day, especially in not carrying out George G. Meade's orders to reconnoiter the Confederate position.
However, we now know that tales of 7,000 men falling in less than an hour are false. We also know that the quest for a ceasefire to recover wounded and dead between the lines was botched by two prideful commanders.
It's often asserted the as president Ulysses S. Grant destroyed the Ku Klux Klan.
The reality is not nearly as satisfying or uplifting to those who deplore white supremacist paramilitary terrorism as conducted primarily by veterans of the Confederate war effort.
The KKK became a shorthand descriptor for the many forms of white supremacist terrorism that slowly took organized form in the late 1860s. There were other massacres (Memphis) and attacks (New Orleans) against blacks and their white allies in the Reconstructing South.
By 1867 and 1868, when Black men in large numbers exercised the right to vote for the first time, white supremacist terrorism, often defined as KKK activity, targeted Black voters and Republican officeholders.
Visual portrayals of what happened in Wilmer McLean's parlor on April 9, 1865, at Appomattox Court House are worth some study.
Here's a simple early version: two generals, one table.
The table is a curious effort to bring together elements of the two tables involved in the event. Grant said at a brown wood oval table; Lee sat at a squarish marble table. Grant's chair was a swivel desk chair backed in leather, while Lee sat in a high-backed chair.
Yet it took a while for artists to include those four pieces of furniture, let alone to assign them to the general who used them.
As true Americans commemorate the anniversary of Lee's surrender to Grant at Appomattox, let's recall that the events of April 9 marked an end to one of the most successful pursuits in military history ... one that is often underappreciated.
In some sixteen days the US forces under Grant's command repulsed a breakout attempt, severed Confederate supply lines and railroads, forced the evacuation of Petersburg and the the Confederate capital at Richmond.
That's for starters.
They then outmarched a foe determined to escape, blocked any chance of the enemy combining forces in North Carolina, then headed the insurgents off before they could reach the protection of the Blue Ridge Mountains.
In the process the foe suffered nearly 50% losses.