ESPN Rob Neyer Blog

Ken Griffey Jr. is now a free agent. Is there a good fit with the Mariners? John Hickey wonders …

It's far too soon to say what new GM Jack Zduriencik's plans are and how much of a baseball history buff he is. But Safeco Field was built with Griffey in mind, and it would make sense to me to see J-Z give Griffey a try, to see if the left-handed [Griffey] who helped make the Mariners a franchise can use the park to his benefit.
If it doesn't work, the Mariners wouldn't be out much money. If it does, there is the potential of high performance.
Given what the Mariners got out of their DH spot last year, Seattle could hardly do worse. And given that Griffey has struggled frequently of late, a return to Seattle might do him good, as well.

"High performance" is exceptionally unlikely. He hasn't been a good player since 2005. He spent each of those three seasons playing his home games in great ballparks for a power hitter. He spent most of those three seasons in the weaker league. Griffey turns 39 in a few weeks. He was not a good player at 36. He was not a good player at 37. He was not a good player at 38.

The odds that he'll be a good player at 39 are not good.

If Griffey's willing to play for a lot less money than he's used to, he could be useful as a platoon DH. Earlier this year he did say he wanted to finish his career in Seattle. And while his departure from Seattle was messy, that was a long time ago and I'm absolutely sure that the great majority of Mariners fans will welcome him back. Considering that the M's are at least two years away from contending, Junior's Return might sell a few extra tickets in 2009.

But in addition to Griffey agreeing to take a huge pay cut, he would also have to agree to being essentially prohibited from playing against left-handed pitchers, because these days he really can't hit them at all. The Mariners would also have to figure out how to get Griffey at least 300 plate appearances without limiting the playing time of right fielder Wladimir Balentien or C/DH/1B Jeff Clement.

That's a lot of moving pieces, and my guess is that they won't fit together in 2009. I do believe Griffey will play for the Mariners again someday. But probably not until the very end of his career (which, granted, might come next September).

Today's Link-O-Rama comes via the home office in Cicely, Alaska …

• Lest anyone blame Jason Bartlett for getting thrown out at home in the seventh inning of Game 5, let's establish something for the record: Bartlett was waved home by third-base coach Tom Foley. Sure, Chase Utley made a great play, faking the throw to first. And yes, Foley could have played it safe and held Bartlett. But as Foley says, "We don't play that way."

• Until the Brewers hired Ken Macha, I'd forgotten just how incredible a record he's got. In four seasons, his Athletics averaged 93 wins. In his (or rather, their) worst season they won 88 games. The A's fired Macha two years ago after a 93-win season and a 3-4 postseason (Division Series sweep followed by an ALCS sweep). Apparently it just wasn't a good fit. But you simply cannot argue with the man's credentials.

• Among the many interesting things about my friend, Rich Lederer: He coached against Chase Utley in Little League. That was yesterday. Today Lederer writes about the new Fielding Bible Awards, the voting for which I participated again this year. My choices differ with the actual awards at only two positions, second base and center field. Brandon Phillips is No. 1 at second; I had Utley winning, with Phillips second. And Carlos Beltran is No. 1 in center; I had Minnesota's Carlos Gomez winning, with Beltran second. So while I share Lederer's concern about one of the voters, I heartily endorse the final results.

• During my postseason in-game chats, one question kept coming up again and again: Will the Rays be broken up after their great season like the Marlins were? Twice? My answer on the fly was always the same: No, because all of their key players are either signed already for 2009 or due to get only modest raises next season. Today in the Times, Alan Schwarz goes into a great deal more depth and essentially agrees with me (but read to the end for one of Joe Maddon's nifty proverbs).

• According to Matthew Cerrone (who would know), the Mets have picked up their $12 million option on Carlos Delgado's contract for next year. This makes sense, because it was either $12 million for 2009 or a $4 million buyout for nothing. Getting a season of Carlos Delgado for $8 million extra? Gotta do it. However, Cerrone also suggests that management could trade Delgado if a better first baseman presents himself.

• Pitching 101: Matt Lentzner offers, with cool drawings, a mechanical model of pitching. Also at The Hardball Times, Craig Brown looks at what teams have already done this month to prepare for 2009.

The Kansas City Star's Bob Dutton on the first notable trade of the off-season:

The Royals wasted no time Thursday in pulling the trigger on their first major off-season move by acquiring slugging first baseman Mike Jacobs from the Florida Marlins for reliever Leo Nuñez.
--snip--
Jacobs is a left-handed hitter who provides the Royals with some much-needed punch for their lineup. He hit a career-high 32 homers this season in 141 games, although he batted just .247 with a .299 on-base percentage.
"We're delighted to acquire a productive hitter to impact the middle of our lineup," general manager Dayton Moore said. "Mike's a winner and has a very aggressive approach to baseball, and we look forward to his presence on our club."
The Royals haven't had a player hit 32 homers since Jermaine Dye had 33 in 2000. José Guillen led the club this season with 20.
--snip--
Nuñez, 25, was 4-1 with a 2.98 ERA in 45 games last season. He fits better into Florida's salary structure because he is not yet eligible for arbitration, meaning he's in position for only a modest raise from $405,000.
The trade raises several issues within the Royals' existing roster. It suggests the club is not convinced that either Ryan Shealy or Kila Ka'aihue is ready for regular duty, and also appears to recognize veteran Ross Gload was overexposed.
It also suggests the Royals might be ready to adopt a harder line in assessing Billy Butler's development.

If not for my lingering affection for the team of my misspent youth, this might strike me as funny. But instead it's a little sad and a little infuriating.

Mike Jacobs is not a good baseball player. He's just not. Jacobs' career OPS+ is 110. That number almost perfectly describes Jacobs' current abilities, as he has been quite consistent. Here are his OPS+ numbers for the past three years: 106, 100, 109. Good for a hitter, but not for a hitter who plays first base.

Yes, he did hit 32 home runs last season. To be a good hitter with a .299 on-base percentage, you have to hit at least 40 homers. Maybe 50.

Oh, and fielding? According to the numbers, Jacobs is one of the worst-fielding first basemen in the majors. He's lousy on bunts, he's lousy on the balls hit to his left, he's lousy on the balls hit to his right and he's lousy on … wait for it … the balls hit right at him.

I don't mean to suggest that Jacobs will be a disaster next season. He's only 28. If he can maintain the power and add 20 walks he won't be the worst first baseman (or DH) in the American League. But this is exactly the sort of trade a team like the Royals shouldn't be making. They've got organizational strength at exactly one spot: 1B/DH. With youngsters Butler and Ka'aihue, those two hitters' spots -- along with Alex Gordon and third base -- are essentially the only positions management should not be worrying about. Relievers are fungible, and Nuñez is just the sort of reliever who should be used as trade bait to fill holes on the roster.

That doesn't mean you just give him away.

The moment I learned that Moore had acquired Jacobs, I recalled this passage from an interview Moore gave to Joe Posnanski just a few weeks ago:

"We have to understand the importance of on-base percentage," Moore says, and he repeats those words -- "on-base percentage" -- about 29 times during the interview, which is good to hear. The last five years, the Royals have finished 12th, 13th, 11th, 13th and 13th in on-base percentage, and frankly it's really, really hard to score a lot of runs when you can't get on base (especially when you do not have much power -- and the Royals don't. Plus they play in a big ballpark).

Moore repeated on-base percentage 29 times in one interview. Dayton Moore gets it, finally … until his very first significant offseason move, when he acquires an everyday player who will, more than anything, be a drag on the team's on-base percentage. This is exactly the sort of thing the Royals would have done 20 years ago -- those teams were perennially OBP-challenged, too -- which, come to think of it, makes a lot of sense because the man making the moves 20 years ago was John Schuerholz. Moore's mentor before he got his job with the Royals? John Schuerholz.

Moore was supposed to build Schuerholz's winning Braves of the 1990s. But instead he's rebuilding Schuerholz's losing Royals of the late 1980s and early '90s. And we had such high hopes for the young man.

What would have been more surprising?

The Phillies winning the World Series? Or the Rays?

In this case the obvious answer is the right answer.

I can't seem to find my predicted standings for this season, but I do have my Predictatron ballot. I predicted 84 wins for the Phillies and 81 for the Rays. Considering the presumed extra difficulty of earning a postseason berth in the American League, it's pretty clear that the Rays would have been a bigger surprise.

What's more, the Phillies really aren't as surprising as that 84-win prediction might suggest. If you'll pardon a bit of mathiness … the standard deviation for team wins is roughly six. Essentially, that means if you know everything about a team -- how good the players are, how often they'll play -- unless you can predict the utterly unpredictable you should feel good about your prediction if you're within six wins at season's end.

Well, I missed by eight wins. Not including the additional 11 this month.

Where did my 84-win prediction go wrong? What's the difference between the Phillies who were supposed to finish third (behind the Mets and the Braves) and the Phillies who won the World Series?

This question isn't as hard to answer as you might guess. With almost every regular hitter doing roughly what we might have expected, it's really all about the pitchers. And with apologies to Chad Durbin (and his 2.87 ERA), it's really all about just two pitchers: Jamie Moyer and Brad Lidge.

Last year, Moyer (1) went 14-12 with a 5.01 ERA, and (2) turned 44 years old. This year, he went 16-7 with a 3.71 ERA (and turns 46 next month). By virtually any reasonable measure, this was Moyer's best year since he was a 40-year-old Mariner.

Last year, Lidge spent a month on the DL and didn't pick up his first save until a week after the All-Star break. After winning the big job, he posted a 4.75 ERA and converted only 19 of 24 save opportunities.

Typically, a top closer -- as opposed to a guy with a 4.75 ERA -- will blow five or six saves per season. Joe Nathan was incredible this season. He's incredible every season. But even Joe Nathan blew six saves this season, and four last season. His team lost seven of those games. So we might guess that even great closers -- say, the best in the majors not named Mariano Rivera -- will blow five saves per season, and their teams will lose three or four of those games.

This year, Brad Lidge didn't blow a single save all season. The Phillies never lost one of those games.

Of course, it wasn't just Lidge. In addition to Durbin, Ryan Madson and J.C. Romero and Clay Condrey all pitched well, and that goes a long way toward explaining how the Phillies went 86-0 during the regular season in games they led after seven innings.

But I look at the Phillies and what they accomplished, and I ask myself what I didn't see before the season, and it comes down to Moyer and Lidge. I didn't think Moyer could win 16 games and I didn't guess that Lidge would convert 100 percent of his save opportunities. And there's your eight extra wins right there.

Congratulations, Phillies: You fooled me. Watch yourselves, though. Next spring I'm going to nail it.

Joe Posnanski, like most writers, genuinely likes Bud Selig. Why? Because Selig seems real, and because he genuinely seems to like baseball …

Bud liked baseball. That's all. When he was a boy he would not talk about playing on a major league baseball team but, instead, owning one. He bought stock in the old Milwaukee Braves back in '63, when he was 29. He was furious when the Braves went South to Atlanta, and he led the charge to get the Seattle Pilots out of hock and bring them to Milwaukee. They were called the Brewers, just like the minor league team Bud grew up watching in town.
He loved being owner of the Milwaukee Brewers. He worked in a small office at the ballpark. Every day, at lunchtime, he got a hot dog smeared with ketchup and a Diet Coke from Gilles Frozen Custard. He got his hair cut at Tony Lococco's every Friday. He wandered through the press box more or less every game just to talk to the sportswriters, just to say how great Robin Yount looked or to ask why Mike Caldwell wasn't throwing too well. He had opinions, and he liked sharing them, and everybody liked him.
Then, later, he became baseball commissioner and that last part ended.

I've never questioned Commissioner Bud's affection for baseball. Not once.

But loving something doesn't mean you'll always do right by it. I'm sure most politicians really do love their country. That doesn't prevent most of them from becoming, to one degree or another, corrupt. From occasionally betraying the public trust. There have been many times over the years -- and particularly during the mid- and late 1990s -- when Selig said one thing and was thinking something quite different. I'm sure he felt he was serving a greater cause, but I'm afraid that cause often was the bottom line of his fellow franchise owners.

After Posnanski runs through Selig's accomplishments -- the wild card, interleague play, disposing (for the most part) of the steroids issue, relative labor peace since 1994 -- he concludes:

So yeah, in the end, I've come to like that confused look because there's something real about Bud Selig. People often comment how he just doesn't seem like a commissioner, he doesn't have any of the polish of NBA commissioner David Stern or the cool forcefulness of NFL commissioner Roger Goodell. That's no doubt true. He still babbles off point, he gives himself powers that nobody seems to believe he has, he stubbornly insists that sometimes the weather gets better later in the fall.
But more and more, in this age of pre-packaged candidates and prepared statements and tortured spinning of every word, Bud Selig seems more to the point. He is incapable of politics. He is sensitive to every criticism. He does not look his best during a crisis. He is just trying to do the right thing. He seems a whole lot like me and just about everybody I know.
"If I told you tonight what I think of meteorologists …," Selig grumbled as he tried to explain why they had even tried to play Monday night's World Series game. The meteorologists, apparently, had given Bud a bum forecast, one that called for very light rain throughout the night. The rain was not light at all.
And so, while one of those other slick commissioners or practiced politicians would have been up on the podium speaking in platitudes and ducking the subject, Bud Selig sat up like every American guy in every barber's chair who has ever had a picnic or an afternoon of golf rained out, and he blamed the weatherman.
"Had it been what three different weather services told us it would be," the commissioner of baseball muttered with a little edge in his voice, "we'd be at the end of the game right now. And we wouldn't be sitting here."

OK. I get it. Stern and Goodell are so slick they're not fun. But isn't there someone out there who's both genuine and well-spoken? I don't think Selig is hurting baseball one bit. Well, maybe a little bit. But not much. The sport just keeps humming along, sucking up many millions of dollars every year, and meanwhile, the game on the field seems to just get better and better. I would not have watched a single game more over the past decade if anyone else had been commissioner.

Speaking strictly as a fan, though? I have to live with the commissioner of baseball, just as I have to live with whoever happens to be the president of the United States of America. And when some occasion calls for baseball's public face to make an appearance, I don't want to see "every American guy in every barber's chair" any more than I want to see "Joe Six-Pack" explaining the latest domestic or international crisis. Just in terms of my personal comfort level, I'd rather see someone who seems like the smartest person in the room.

I'm sure Selig is usually quite good at what he does. Certainly, the owners love him. But I wish they would create a new position for him. Executive Commissioner Commissioner Emeritus. Whatever. And let him keep doing exactly what he's doing … except for the news conferences and the amateur draft announcements and the presentations of awards. All the stuff that reminds all of us that the guy who runs the game might be found in every barber's chair, complaining about the Channel 4 weather guy.

In USA Today, Bob Nightengale has a compelling piece about Brett Myers. Two chunks:

PHILADELPHIA -- Brett Myers still hears the taunts from the stands. He gets the obscene letters.
"I know there are people out there that think I'm a jerk. There are people out there who think I'm a wife-beater. That will never change," says Myers, alluding to a 2006 incident in which he was arrested and charged in Boston with assaulting his wife, Kim.
"But you know what, I really don't care what people think about me. … If people don't like me, they can deal with it. This is who I am."
The words sound rough, just like the upbringing for the right-handed pitcher who has helped the Philadelphia Phillies move within one victory of a World Series title. Myers was raised by his father, a boxing promoter and hustler, moving from house to house on the wrong side of Jacksonville.
Myers lowers his head. He blinks away the wetness in his eyes and speaks almost in a whisper. "I just wish people took time to know me before they make judgments," Myers says. "That's all I ask. They think I'm this rude guy who doesn't appreciate what I got. If only they knew."
--snip--
Myers has never publicly revealed details of the night of June 22, 2006, in Boston. He says he doesn't want to talk about it, but slowly the words seep out.
Myers says he and Kim went out for dinner. They had drinks. Lots of them. They started to bicker. An argument arose on the street outside a bar. According to the police report, Myers allegedly hit his wife and dragged her by her hair. He was arrested and charged with assault and battery and released after Kim posted bail.
"They say I dragged my wife by her hair," Myers says. "Never happened.
"They say I kicked her and threw her around like a rag doll. Never happened.
"I never did anything to her. There was nothing on her face. I was actually trying to protect her and get her to her room. She didn't want to go, and things got carried away.
"When you're both heavily intoxicated, that stuff does stuff to you you're not supposed to do."
Kim, about a foot shorter and 120 pounds lighter than Myers, who's 6-4 and 238 pounds, pleaded in front of the judge to drop the charges. They both expressed their guilt. The charges were dropped.

It's a solid piece of journalism, and I suggest you read the whole thing. One question that doesn't come up, though: Are Myers and his wife still having lots of drinks and "bickering" afterward? For their sake, I hope not.

But I don't mean to be sanctimonious. When the news about Myers and his wife hit the wires, there was a great rush to judgment. I don't remember what -- if anything -- I wrote. I remember that a lot of people thought Myers should have been suspended by Major League Baseball and perhaps locked up in a cell for a while. That might not be a rational reaction, but it's understandable. We root for Russell Crowe in L.A. Confidential when he takes apart the brutish wife-beater.

That's a movie, though. Life usually isn't so simple, and Brett Myers probably doesn't deserve to get roughed up by Russell Crowe. He also probably doesn't deserve the abuse he still gets from "baseball fans." I'm not usually one who likes the human-interest stories. But I do recommend that you read this one. Maybe it will change your mind a little.

• Ready for a bit of Baseball History 101? In the Times, Alan Schwarz reviews the role that rain has played in World Series past. (One sorry situation that Schwarz doesn't mention: 1925's Game 7, which was played in appalling conditions, with steady rain beginning in the fifth inning that left much of a field a quagmire and played a big role in the Pirates' 9-7 win over the Washington Senators and Walter Johnson.)

• Monday night the Phillies' clubhouse was the angriest place on earth, Michael Radano writes. He offers five reasons, including:

2. The Phillies held a 2-1 lead heading into the sixth as the rain continued to fall and rivers formed throughout the infield. The grounds crew -- already working beyond the call of duty -- did their best but as the inning wore on the field worsened. B.J. Upton hit an infield single that Jimmy Rollins had in the tip of his glove. Normal conditions, inning over. In these, Upton reached base, stole second and then scored on a flare into left field.
3. Tampa can start David Price tomorrow or whenever this game resumes. The Phillies have already indicated they will begin with their bullpen. That favors the Rays as Price can go multiple innings.

About No. 2? No. Upton is fast, and I think if you go back and watch that play you'll conclude that even if Rollins had fielded the ball cleanly, his throw wouldn't have beat Upton to first base. Probably not all that close.

No. 3? Also, no. I mean, Price can pitch the bottom of the sixth. But it's not at all clear that he will. If Price takes over for Grant Balfour in the lineup, his spot will be up fourth in the top of the seventh. And a double-switch really isn't an option because Joe Maddon isn't going to yank any of the top five guys in his lineup. I think we'll see Price pitch tonight. But not until the eighth or ninth inning. Which isn't any different than if the game hadn't been suspended.

• Maybe this is now terribly old news, but do you remember when commissioner Bud blamed the weather guys for the ill-fated decision to begin playing Game 5? Only one problem: The meteorologists nailed the forecast for Tuesday night, Owen Doherty writes.

(Tip of the cap to Joe Posnanski.)

• FanHouse's Andrew Johnson makes an excellent point: While MLB certainly has its postseason problems, so do all the other sports. So why so much criticism of baseball? Because baseball is held to a higher standard. And I'm OK with that.

(H/T: BBTF's Newsstand)

• Did you hear that sigh of relief coming from the general direction of Disneyland yesterday? That was the Angels, finally getting out from under Garret Anderson's $45 million contract. Sure, it cost them an "extra" $3 million, but the alternative was paying him another $14 million next season.

Anderson is still a decent major league player. For a couple of years, when he topped .300 and hit nearly 30 home runs, Anderson was quite good. Otherwise he has been merely adequate, his value limited by a near-complete inability to draw walks (leading to a .327 career on-base percentage).

But Anderson can still play a solid left field and hit .285, so there's a job for him in the majors if he wants one. And perhaps even with the Angels, who apparently are interested in bringing Anderson back at a (greatly) reduced price. I hope that works out. He has been an Angel for his entire career, and I don't relish the image of him wearing a strange uniform.

• In 2006 and 2007, Aaron Harang was one of the better pitchers in the National League, winning 16 games each season and finishing at or near the top of the league in both innings and strikeouts. In 2008, his ERA skyrocketed and he lost 17 games. What happened? FanGraphs' Eric Seidman notes that Harang's strikeouts were down, his fly balls and (not coincidentally) home runs were up, and he suffered some poor luck to boot. The Reds are going to be a popular dark horse next spring, but they're not going far unless Harang is luckier (likely) and better (who knows?).

Major League Baseball did the right thing Monday night.

But they did it the wrong way.

Sure, commissioner Bud Selig essentially invented a new rule for the World Series. But sometimes it's within his power to do things like that, under the heading "best interests of baseball."

Still, there are some things in here that might arch your eyebrows, just a little …

Selig met in the umpires' room with officials of both teams an hour before the start of Game 5 on Monday night and told them no matter how long it took, the game would not be cut short.
"I was not going to allow that to happen," he said, clutching a rule book in his left hand.
--snip--
While regular-season games can end after the trailing team has made 15 outs, there has never been a shortened postseason game. Selig did not want a situation where the Phillies, who lead the Series three games to one, could have been ahead, and then won the World Series when the game was called several hours later without completing it.
"It's not a way to end a World Series," he said. "I'm on very solid ground."
Selig and a gaggle of officials met before the game to go over what would happen. The meeting included Phillies general manager Pat Gillick, Rays executive vice president Andrew Friedman, the managers of both teams, MLB chief operating officer Bob DuPuy and other top officials from the commissioner's office.
"Both Andrew and myself, we wanted to make sure that if this game was to be played, we wanted it to play to the conclusion," Gillick said. "I wanted it played fairly, both sides, Tampa Bay and ourselves. We were aware that the commissioner could, even with the score not tied, could continue this game later and call a rain delay until the proper conditions did exist."
Tampa Bay agreed with the decision.
"There was significant discussion before the game and before Saturday's game about the conditions," Rays president Matt Silverman said, referring to Game 3 whose start was delayed 91 minutes. "The decision was made … the game wouldn't end without playing the full nine innings."

I have no argument with any of this. But if everything was decided before Game 5 -- and depending on how you interpret Silverman's comments, perhaps even before Game 3 -- why didn't any of us learn anything until after Game 5? What about the umpires? Did they know? If they did know, why didn't they simply stop the game after the bottom of the fifth -- with the Phillies leading 2-1 -- by which point the conditions on the field were already atrocious.

In MLB's postgame press conference, umpire Tim Tschida said this:

When the wind turned around and started coming in from right field is when you started to see where catchers had trouble catching the ball, and now the game runs the risk of being comical. We never reached that point, and that was our goal all along, was to stay that way. And it turns out where, you know, we have pretty identical line scores at the end of the day. It didn't seem to be worse for one team or the other. What's fair is fair, with us, and we just felt we went as far as we could go.

Was it really fair, though? I don't know which side has the advantage when the conditions are as awful as they were last night. My suspicion is that it's the offense, though. When the mound is muddy and the ball is wet, it's hard to pitch. When the ball is wet and the wind is howling, it's hard to field. Either way, it's hard to argue that wind and rain and cold have the same impact on both sides. And once you've lost that argument, it's impossible to argue that one team or the other didn't have an advantage unless only full innings were played. And as you know, a half-inning was played, and it was in that particular half-inning that the Rays tied the game with an odds-defying two-out rally.

Maybe this -- from a Phillies message board afterward -- is a minority opinion, but if so I'll bet it's a popular minority opinion:

Official press conference. Game suspended, resumed when $#@! selig says weather conditions and tampa bay scoring opportunities are appropriate.

Can you blame them, really? As you watched these strange events unfold, didn't you get the sneaking suspicion that MLB was just waiting to stop the game until the Rays had tied the score? How must it have looked to Phillies fans who thought their city's first championship since 1983 was just moments away?

So, let's review … Commissioner Selig should have told everyone that the World Series would not be allowed to end without a ninth inning well before this new policy actually came into play. The umpires should have stopped the game before the Rays tied the game in the sixth. Essentially everything that could have been done wrong, was.

Except for the big thing. There will be a ninth inning in the last game of the 2008 World Series. And that's all we'll remember. Unless we're waiting for that first championship since 28 years ago.

As Joshua Robinson writes, this hasn't been a good World Series for the Rays or for the umpires. Sunday night's blown call at third base?

It was the fourth time in as many games during this World Series that an umpiring decision has sparked controversy -- this in the same season that saw the introduction of instant replays, but only to judge the accuracy of home run calls. But the controversy, it seems, exists only outside the lines of the field. Players and officials alike echo the same refrain about the umpires' World Series blunders: these things happen in baseball.
"I can promise you there is a severe level of disappointment from umpires on the field," said Mike Port, Major League Baseball's vice president of umpiring. "They may maintain a certain professional demeanor, but in the clubhouse, they react to a missed call like a player who just struck out in a World Series game with the winning run at third base."
--snip--
"As an umpire you never want to be involved in the outcome of the game," [umpire Tom] Hallion said very late Saturday night after Game 3 ended. "We like to get every play right. We're human beings and sometimes we get them wrong."

Look, nobody's questioning the umpires' commitment to their profession. I do think it's reprehensible for an umpire to invent his own strike zone. But I don't think that happens nearly as much as it used to, and for the most part the plate umpires have been solid throughout this postseason.

And yes, they are human and they will make mistakes, and it's a lot easier to make the calls after you see everything from a distance in super-slow motion. The call that Hallion missed in Game 3? Given where he was positioned and where Ryan Howard caught Jamie Moyer's throw barehanded, there was literally nothing Hallion could do but guess. Throw in a little professional intuition and he probably had a 60 percent chance of getting it right. This time the 40 percent jumped up and bit him.

It happens. And while it's easy to blame the umpires, to wonder why the good umpires aren't doing the games, for the most part these are the good umpires. There was a time when everybody got assigned to postseason games. You could be the worst umpire in the majors, but every few years you'd be assigned to work a League Championship Series, and then a few years later you'd be in the World Series.

No more. Today, every umpire is graded by MLB during the season, and essentially if you finish in the bottom half among the 68 full-time umpires, you don't work in October.

At least that's the way it's supposed to work. I do have my doubts about the grading system. In 2003 and 2006, Sports Illustrated conducted polls of major league players, asking them to name the worst umpire in the majors. In both years, Bruce Froemming, now retired, finished second behind C.B. Bucknor. Yet while Froemming didn't work in a World Series after 1995, he worked in two National League Championship Series after '95, and seven Division Series. Bucknor worked in an American League Division Series two years ago. Angel Hernandez finished sixth-worst in the poll in 2003, third-worst in 2006. Yet he's umpired in two World Series, four League Championship Series and four Division Series.

Granted, MLB's idea of a good umpire and the players' idea of a good umpire might be completely different. But it's a bit, ahem, surprising that the umpires judged as the very worst by the players somehow seem to regularly come out in the top half of MLB's grading system. Anyone else think a little transparency might be a good thing?

More than Joe Maddon's bizarre lineup decisions, more than all the blown calls by the umpires in this Series -- hey, at least Jimmy Rollins, after Tim Welke's gaffe at third base last night, won't need a prostate exam for another decade or so -- what everyone wanted to talk about during my Game 4 chat was that big ugly smudge on Joe Blanton's hat.

Don't worry: MLB is on top of it. They promise …

PHILADELPHIA -- Joe Blanton got off to a sizzling start in Game 4 of the World Series on Sunday night. He was so good, in fact, that Rays manager Joe Maddon became suspicious of the Phillies right-hander.
Blanton struck out three batters in the first two innings and four of the first eight men he faced, allowing a pair of singles but no real threats. He flashed an impressive slider with sharp movement, striking out both Evan Longoria and Carl Crawford on the pitch.
The movement, combined with a visible discoloration on the top of the bill of Blanton's cap, gave the Rays reason to try to put two-and-two together. Television close-ups of Blanton revealed some sort of dark spot on the cap. A similar spot was visible on the bill of Blanton's cap during the National League Championship Series.
Rays manager Joe Maddon told home-plate umpire Tom Hallion at the end of the second inning that he believed Blanton had pine tar on his hat. Hallion replied to Maddon that he would check the ball, and if he found a foreign substance on the ball, he would proceed accordingly.
"We did notice," Maddon said after the game. "It was rather dark. I did bring it to [the umpires'] attention. Quite frankly, I did. I asked them to watch it and be vigilant about it. Nothing happened, obviously, but I was concerned about that early on."
According to Mike Port, Major League Baseball's vice president of umpiring, the request was essentially the end of the issue. Hallion kept an eye on the ball and on Blanton, and found nothing suspicious.
"They had noted something on the top of Blanton's cap and just asked Tom Hallion to keep an eye on how Blanton went about things and to keep an eye on the baseballs, also," Port said. "Hallion said that he would check the baseballs, and if there was any reason for further investigation, that he'd stay on top of it and take things from there, and Maddon was fine with that."
Blanton pitched the remainder of the game without incident. He lasted into the seventh inning, allowing two runs. He and Phillies manager Charlie Manuel laughed off the situation, explaining that the smudge simply consists of the dirt that accumulates over a long season.
"It's nothing," Blanton said. "They rub the balls up with whatever they rub them up with, and you rub it up and get it on your hand. I'm constantly trying to get moisture, and just touch my hat. It's nothing sticky. Anybody can go touch it. It's basically just dirt from the ball that gets … over time, over so many starts, I don't change my hat. It just gets rubbed on the hat."
--snip--
"Watching Blanton, he was going to his cap," Port said. "I don't think, in my estimation, as a spectator, I don't feel there was anything untoward because I noticed almost a nervous habit -- he was going to his cap all the time. I can only guess it was normal smudging. But, suffice it to say that even after Joe Maddon talking with Tom Hallion about keeping an eye on the situation, Tom didn't detect anything as far as action on the baseball or any substance on the baseball."

Frankly, I'm bringing this up only because last night during my Game 4 chat, I kept getting questions about it. My reaction was that if there was really an issue, the umpires probably would have addressed it. That said, if a pitcher was going to cheat, this might be the perfect crime: Get your hat dirty, then mix in a little liquid Teflon or whatever. It's certainly been done.

So my question is this: Why are players allowed to wear clothing and equipment that leads to these questions? Last time I checked there wasn't any hat shortage. Also -- and this just occurred to me -- like everyone else, Blanton's hat sports one of those ugly World Series patches above his left ear. If that's really an old hat, someone actually went to the trouble of sewing on the patch, rather than just handing Blanton a shiny new hat, fresh out of the box.

I don't believe that Blanton was cheating. But I shouldn't have to believe or not believe anything. Neither should Joe Maddon or Tom Hallion or Mike Port. There's absolutely no good reason for not having a simple rule: If your hat is obviously stained with some foreign substance -- dirt, pine tar, sweat, whatever -- you have to put on a new one. I'm pretty sure MLB can afford it, and the old one should bring a nice price on eBay.

Game 4 wound up being a laugher, with the Phillies crushing the Rays in an October edition of Home Run Derby. But the first three games were close, and any of them might have been determined by the managers. Color Mitchel Lichtman unimpressed. A sample:

It might just be my perception, but the likely winner of the AL manager of the year, Joe Maddon, and the NL manager who will probably receive a few votes, Charlie Manuel, are just butchering the game, on an almost inning-by-inning basis.
Let's forget about the games in the past. They have been aptly analyzed by the good folks here and on other web sites. I'll focus only on last night's game, Game 3 of the World Series. That will give me plenty of fodder.
Let's start in the AL manager's office before the game, while he is sitting down and contemplating his lineup, or perhaps just throwing darts at the wall. Let's see, a lefty pitcher on the mound in Jamie Moyer, who doesn't have a huge career platoon split, but a conventional split nonetheless. Hmmm. Last game I started my right-handed batter Rocco Baldelli (I am not sure he should be playing at all -- he does not look well to me, but that's another story) against a right-handed starting pitcher, so what the heck, I'll start my lefty batter against a lefty pitcher. It is better to be consistent than right, right? Don't dare peek at Greg Gross' splits. You might be "Gross'd" out. He is positively anemic against lefty pitchers, not that he plays much against them -- so you never know.

Here's Maddon's explanation for starting Gross against Moyer in Game 4:

Maddon conceded the decision to start Gross did not come easy.
"I really was pondering that one a lot," Maddon said. "Again, it's versus Jamie Moyer, the left-handed situation. You look at Jamie -- I've known him for years -- you look at our right-handed hitters versus him, you look at our left-handed hitters against him. Believe me, that one I went back and forth with a lot. I was not comfortable making that decision until I really let it stir a bit."
Gross' swing turned out to be one of the deciding factors.
"The swing path where Jamie likes to throw the ball, I felt Gabe was the best matchup with him, even over our right-handed hitters tonight," Maddon said. "So we chose to go in that direction, and that's quite frankly the reasons.
"Again, not trying to get too smart, but when we have so many options, almost too many options, like in right field, we could go [with] either Ben [Zobrist] or Fernando [Perez] or Rocco [Baldelli], and of course Gabe, and the other guys being right-handed, it looks like you might go that way. For those of you that have watched Jamie pitch in the past, sometimes it might be better left-handed."

I don't know a swing path from a cow path. But if starting Gabe Gross against Jamie Moyer isn't "trying to get too smart," then what exactly is it?

I think I would like Joe Maddon if I spent some time with him. I appreciate his creativity and his intelligence, and he's certainly one of the more interesting men managing in the majors today. But managers have been looking to gain the platoon advantage for a long, long time, and there's a pretty good reason for it. I think Lichtman is mostly wrong when he says Moyer has a "conventional" career platoon split; Moyer has actually given up slightly more to left-handed hitters than right-handed hitters over his entire career. But Gabe Gross? He's a lifetime .148 hitter against lefties. Granted, that's only 122 at-bats and Gross can't really be that bad. Also granted: Maybe there's something going on that we don't know about.

But usually the game isn't really so complicated. Fernando Perez and Ben Zobrist are both subpar hitters. If there's a lefty starting, Baldelli should almost always start. If a righty, then Gross should start. Stray far from that formula -- as Maddon has, almost completely -- and you're wide open to charges of trying to get too smart. And it's really hard to outsmart the game at this point, after more than a century.

The Rays have been outplayed to this point. Obviously. And as Lichtman points out, Charlie Manuel hasn't exactly covered himself in tactical glory, either. (Does Pedro Feliz really have to keep hitting against right-handed pitchers?) But it's Maddon's team on the verge of getting knocked out quicker than most of us imagined. So it's Maddon who's going to be second-guessed if that happens.

Jon Heyman writes today about the latest Jake Peavy news, but it's this nugget about Russell Martin that caught my eye:

The Dodgers were disappointed by the regression of catcher Russell Martin, who in the words of one Dodgers-connected person was "just another catcher" this year. Only a year ago Martin was an excellent two-way player who won a Gold Glove and a Silver Slugger and appeared on the verge of superstardom. The New York Post reported that the Dodgers might even consider trading him.
Martin, Matt Kemp and to a lesser degree Andre Ethier still need to do some growing up, people familiar with the Dodgers say -- though the overall performance of the talented trio improved once [Manny] Ramirez joined the team. James Loney, the fourth young Dodger stud, is said by team officials not to have been infested by the same maturity malady that has affected the others.

Before we get into the stuff nobody outside the locker room can even begin to quantify, it's true that Martin's hitting stats took a bit of a tumble this year, particularly in the power department. But I'm reminded of what Baseball Prospectus wrote about Martin last winter, after his outstanding 2007:

He was almost too good, as his 1,254 innings behind the plate -- a single-season total surpassed by only Jason Kendall in the past decade -- likely led to a .259/.330/.395 September slump. Durable as Martin may be, former catcher Grady Little should have eased off the throttle. Joe Torre's shown a decent ability to modulate Jorge Posada's usage to avoid late-season burnout; expect him to take a stronger hand here, and for Martin to spend the next few years battling Brian McCann for the title of the league's best catcher.

A stronger hand from Torre? Martin started 138 games behind the plate this year, only five fewer than in 2007. But he saw action as the Dodgers' catcher in 149 games this year, four more than in 2007. Net result: Martin was behind the plate this year for 1,238 innings.

Predictably, Martin got off to a great start before tailing off in the second half. Dramatically so. In fact, that's been the pattern in each of Martin's three major league seasons. Here are his career totals:

Before the All-Star break: .297/.378/.460
After the All-Star break: .270/.367/.401

Do hard-working catchers typically drop off in the second half of the season? Kendall hasn't. Ivan Rodriguez has. And there really aren't many 150-games-per-season catchers for comparison. But it does seem to me that if you've got a catcher who's playing almost every day and whose performance falls off in August and September every year, you might think about giving him a day off every week or two.

I can't say anything about Martin's maturity, or lack thereof. Yes, he didn't hit as many home runs this year as we might have expected. But "just another catcher"? Really? Russell Nathan Coltrane Jeanson Martin hit .280 and drew 90 walks and even stole 18 bases. You'd think that's something they could work with.

The World Series has barely started, and already we're getting rumors about free agents? Bring 'em on, I say. We can spend only so much time talking about two-game slumps and Charlie Manuel's odd tactical moves. So here's Joel Sherman in the New York Post on a couple of veteran pitchers the Mets may be going after, next month:

The Mets plan on targeting Derek Lowe and Brian Fuentes in the free agent market, an NL executive who has talked to team officials told the Post.
The Mets are promising to be creative and explore many avenues. But Lowe (a dependable innings eater) and Fuentes (a proven closer) fit the Mets' top two needs, and are going to be pursued by the organization this offseason.
Lowe, 35, has made at least 32 starts and won at least 12 games in each of the past seven seasons. He is a groundball artist and has experience in the Northeast/playoff cauldron for the Red Sox. He is a Scott Boras client who will have plenty of suitors, including the Yankees, and probably will take well into the offseason to sign.
Fuentes, however, could come off the board quickly because, executives say, his market of around three years at $36 million-$39 million has been established. The Mets have indicated they don't want to pay a big salary to a new closer in addition to paying Billy Wagner, who will miss all of 2009 and whose $13 million contract is not insured. But they have determined their need is great enough and the top closer on the market, Francisco Rodriguez, might cost too much to sign.
Fuentes has 111 saves over the past four seasons, including 30 last year when he pitched to a 2.73 ERA and struck out 82 in 622/3 innings.
He does have an unorthodox delivery, however, that leads to questions about his consistency and susceptibility to injuries.

Derek Lowe's credentials are impeccable. Since arriving in the National League in 2005, he's 11th in the league in ERA and 10th in innings pitched. Since becoming a full-time starter in 2002, he's started at least 32 games every season. One of the game's premier sinker-ballers, Lowe doesn't give up home runs. Put a good infield defense behind him, he'll win 15-18 games.

My only reservation about Lowe is that he'll turn 36 next summer. Will he still be effective when he's 38, 39? I wouldn't be surprised. There's no reason to think he won't be healthy, and Tommy John -- another top sinker-baller -- won 66 games in the four seasons beginning with his age 36 season. I'm not saying Derek Lowe is Tommy John. But I find the comparison illuminating.

Fuentes, too: impeccable. He's been a closer, more or less, for four seasons, and considering his home ballpark (Coors Field) he's been brilliant. As a lefty sidearmer he's particularly tough on left-handed hitters, but he's no picnic for the righties, either.

Of course, it's easy to say you're going after Lowe and Fuentes. A lot of teams will go after one or both of them. The trick is overpaying enough to get them. But if the Mets do sign both Lowe and Fuentes, I'd have a real hard time picking some other team to win the NL East next spring.

**************

In the same column, Sherman explores Carlos Pena's quick journey from the Yankees to the Red Sox to starring for the Rays. I don't think you can really blame either of those big-money teams, because they were trying to win then and Pena, spending most of his time in the minors, was not hitting like a future major league star. Some organizations might have given him a shot in the majors, but the Yankees and Red Sox weren't really in a position to do that. And remember, before the Yankees and the Red Sox, the Rangers and the Athletics and the Tigers also considered Pena mostly disposable.

Sometimes they'll fool you.

Hi. I'm Rob the Blogger. I'm hoping to buy ESPN.com in a year or two, so get off my back. These are my links. Please click them, either before or after reading my pithy link-related commentary. Your choice.

• It's a funny thing about the Internets. Once you toss something out there, it's hard to take it back. Take, for instance, Curt Schilling. Earlier this week he wrote a long and rambling essay about Manny Ramirez, and added it to his blog. But don't bother going there to read it, because almost immediately he took it down. Sorry, Schill. It's still out there, floating around without a thought of its own, and Fire Brand of the American League's Evan Brunell has it, right here. I link, you decide.

• Luis Gonzalez turned 41 last month and he hasn't been a good baseball player since he was 35 or 36, but he definitely wants to play next year, preferably for the Diamondbacks. You can't blame the guy, particularly considering that "money would be no issue." Gonzalez got 341 at-bats with the Marlins this year, the fewest in his career but still too many. He could be useful as a pinch-hitter, though. I suspect he'll find a spot with a National League club.

• When we last heard from Indians farmhand Randy Newsom, he was selling shares of his future baseball earnings, only to discover that a lot of people had a lot of issues with him doing that (and I got my money back). Newsom spent most of the season in Double-A before reaching Triple-A for the first time. Now the 26-year-old sidearming reliever is pitching in Venezuela, and blogging about it.

• If you don't mind a quick trip in Ye Olde Time Machine, taking us all the way back to Wednesday night … I mentioned this quickly during my Game 1 chat, but it's worth reading King Kaufman's comprehensive takedown of Charlie Manuel's unfathomable deployment of Eric Bruntlett. I bring this up for two reasons. One, Bruntlett hit his third homer of 2008 in Game 2. And two, Manuel committed a larger gaffe last night when he didn't pinch-hit for Pedro Feliz with two runners on base in the sixth inning. James Shields had just been relieved by Dan Wheeler, another righty. This was exactly the point at which an aggressive manager would have deployed either Matt Stairs or Geoff Jenkins, both of them fairly dangerous left-handed hitters. Because Feliz has never hit right-handed pitching, and never will. He can be a useful player, but not if his manager's not willing to pinch-hit for him in a spot exactly like this.

• During that same Game 1 chat, someone asked me who served as the model for the batter in MLB's logo. I responded with the stock answer: Harmon Killebrew. Lo and behold, the very next day's Wall Street Journal included an article about Jerry Dior, the graphic designer who designed that same logo in 1968. In response to a question about Killebrew, Dior says, "That's completely untrue. It's not Harmon Killebrew. It's not anyone in particular."

Well, OK. But no one in particular? No one at all? I've known a few artists over the years, and I'm afraid I have a hard time imagining one of them drawing a stylized baseball player without taking at least a few glances at the real thing. Maybe it's not anyone in particular, but someone served as the model for Dior. I suspect he has either forgotten or wasn't paying attention in the first place. It's just the sort of thing an artist would do.

OK, so the Mariners haven't exactly hired a Young Turk as their new GM; Jack Zduriencik is 57. Nevertheless, he arrives with solid credentials, and the reserved endorsement of U.S.S. Mariner's Dave Cameron:

The M's have chosen Jack Zduriencik as their new GM. Despite the fact that he's the oldest of the candidates interviewed and comes with a scouting background, do not assume that this is just more of the same. Zduriencik has been the best regarded scouting director in baseball for the last few years, and the work he did in building the Brewers through the draft was legendary. If you want to know why the Brewers were in the playoffs this year, it's because Zduriencik hit home run after home run in the draft. This is a good hire.
Now, Jack Z isn't exactly the new-school analytical type we were all hoping for. His strengths are all scouting based, and he won't be the kind of guy to come in and turn the Mariners into the next Oakland/Cleveland/Boston/Tampa Bay. With Engle, Fontaine and now Zduriencik, the Mariners are clearly going to try to win with the Atlanta/Minnesota/Anaheim method of just outscouting everyone else on earth and developing so much good talent from within that they can't help but be competitive.
Guess what? It can work. It's not the best possible path, but it's not doomed for failure, either. If Zduriencik can prove to be as adept at evaluating major league talent as he has been at amateur talent, and the M's commit to a development pipeline that enables the team to grow a roster of homemade all-stars, they could line themselves up to be a very good team.
If they want to be a great team, they should not stop with Z, but hire a strong analytical department to supplement the scouting strength at the top of the front office. The two can work together, but there has to be a real effort on the M's part here. If they stop with Zduriencik, it's not enough -- if they let him build a good organization with strong analysts surrounding the Big Three scouting types, this could be a player development machine.
Let's hope for the best. Welcome to Seattle, Z.

I have just one quibble with Cameron's analysis: Zduriencik's approach might be enough, all by itself, to make the Mariners a great team. Oh, maybe not Red Sox-great; not 95-wins-every-season great. But the Twins pay very little attention to modern objective analysis, and yet over the past eight seasons they've averaged 88 wins and won four division titles. What happens if you take the Twins' scouting success and add $40 million to the budget?

That just might be the Mariners, who already enjoy a great market and a profitable new ballpark.

We know that Zduriencik's got a strong resume. What we can't know yet is whether or not he's got what it takes to essentially bend an entire organization to his will. I believe if the Mariners' upper management was going to build a strong analytical department, they'd have done it already. But I don't believe they need one to get back to competing for division titles.

Were you as surprised as I was to see Ben Zobrist starting in right field for the Rays last night?

Tyler Kepner on the rationale:

"Right field is the revolving door," Manager Joe Maddon said before Game 1 on Wednesday night. "We're just going to go based off what we perceive to be the best hitter-pitcher matchup. That's kind of what we've been doing all year."
When Maddon spun the door in his meetings with coaches before Game 1, it was Ben Zobrist, of all people, who popped out. Zobrist started one game in right field this season, and played there for just seven innings.
But with the Phillies starting a left-hander, Cole Hamels, Maddon wanted the switch-hitting Zobrist to play right field, with the switch-hitting Willy Aybar at designated hitter. Zobrist hit .269 against left-handers in the regular season, but was 0 for 4 in the postseason.
"We look at the way Hamels pitches and the way different guys in the lineup hit and the pitches they're able to handle," Maddon said, without offering specifics. "Zobrist has been getting work in the outfield. Maybe they're concerned about the defense, but we had a pretty in-depth discussion amongst the coaching staff, and everybody felt good."

Nine players started in right field for the Rays during the regular season. Five of them started more than three games. Only one of those is on the World Series roster. Eric Hinske started 47 games in right field. He's out, despite having hit 20 homers. Jonny Gomes started 17 games. He's out, having batted .182 during the season. Justin Ruggiano and Nathan Haynes started eight games apiece in right field. They're both out.

That leaves only Gabe Gross, who led the Rays with 75 starts in right field. But Gross has a .148 career batting average against left-handed pitching. Reasonably enough, Maddon wanted to start a right-handed hitter against Hamels.

But Benjamin T. Zobrist? The 27-year-old switch-hitting ex-shortstop whose career line in the majors is .222/.279/.370?

Granted, Zobrist did well this season, posting (among other things) a .505 slugging percentage. His power is relatively newfound, but in the minors he's always hit for a good average and drawn plenty of walks. And I take Maddon at his word; I'm sure his lineup decisions really are informed by granular information about individual pitchers' pitches and his hitters' ability to hit (or not) those pitches.

That said, (1) I wonder how much information the Rays have about Zobrist, and (2) it's particularly problematic in Hamels' case, because in his career he's been "reverse-platoon"; that is, he's actually been tougher on right-handed hitters than left-handed hitters, presumably because his change-up works like a screwball. I also wonder if Zobrist started simply because Rocco Baldelli wasn't feeling strong enough to play. Baldelli's story is inspiring, but his presence on the roster does leave Maddon somewhat short-handed, considering that he's available on sort of an inning-by-inning basis.

On paper at least, the Rays probably should have found a place on their roster for Justin Ruggiano. He plays right field, he bats right-handed, and from Day 1 in the minors he's been a better professional hitter than Zobrist. But Ruggiano batted .197 in 76 at-bats with the big club this season, and management obviously doesn't trust his minor league performance.

Maybe management is right about Ruggiano and Zobrist. But when I look at the Rays' World Series roster, I see an empty spot where a durable and powerful right-handed-hitting outfielder should be.

The always-fascinating story of Jose Canseco takes yet another (not-so-surprising) turn:

"If I could meet with Mark McGwire and these players, I definitely would apologize to them," Canseco said, according to the New York Daily News. "They were my friends. I admired them. I respected them."

Whatever. Canseco has run out of money. No longer able to buy friends, he's realized that without sympathetic ex-colleagues he doesn't have any friends at all. Good luck with that.

I found this quote more interesting: "My body forgot how to make testosterone … Steroids and the use of steroids destroyed my life completely. Maybe [steroid use] will change some things chemically in me. I don't know what's going to happen."

Four years ago, I had to read "Juiced" (Canseco's first and "best" book) because I reviewed it for a newspaper. The author saved his best material for the epilogue, titled "Forever Young." My favorite passage:

Look at me. See me on TV, or in the newspaper, and you'll see that we do have choices in life about how we want to look and feel. If you don't mind turning forty and feeling worn down and powerless, and looking like someone on the down slope to the nursing home, that's your choice. But if you want to head into your forties feeling strong and active, and looking as good as you ever have, the way I do, you can choose that one, too.
I have chemically restructured my body, giving myself one of the best physiques in the world and enabling myself to do things at forty that most twenty-year-old kids couldn't do. Best of all, I have prepared myself to maintain that body for years to come. My strength, vitality, and appearance are my best argument for what I'm saying. If I were exaggerating the effect that growth hormone and steroids can have when used properly and carefully as part of a program of weight lifting, fitness, careful nutrition, and clean living, then why would I look and feel as good as I do?

Canseco will only sink deeper into his morass of delusions and paranoia. When he hits bottom -- and trust me, he's not there yet -- someone will describe him as a tragic figure. But he's not tragic. He's merely pathetic. And I would rather not look at him.

Today's Link-o-Rama comes straight from my computing machine, via the home office in Burns, Oregon.

• Here's the smallest surprise of the offseason: The Cardinals won't pay Mark Mulder $11.5 million next season. Instead they'll write a check for $1.5 million and wish him well. As a wise man writes, "Frankly, it's a bargain. I would have paid $2M to not have heard all the stories the last two years about the 'progress' of his rehabbing."

• Charlie Manuel isn't saying who his DHs are going to be. Good for him. Might as well do what he can to keep Joe Maddon awake at night. Still, the speculation is that Chris Coste will DH against the lefty (Scott Kazmir) and Matt Stairs may take the lead against the righties (everybody else). If I may, though … In his career against left-handed pitchers, Coste has batted .316/.361/.503. Case closed. Manuel doesn't have any other right-handed hitter on the bench who can nearly match those numbers. (So Taguchi? Stop it. You're killing me.) I'm not so wild about Matt Stairs. I'm thrilled to death that there's still room in Major League Baseball for a 40-year-old fire hydrant. But there's not a great deal of evidence suggesting that he's a better hitter against right-handed pitching than Geoff Jenkins or (especially) Greg Dobbs. And you know both of those guys are faster than Stairs. Then again, Dobbs should probably be starting at third base (instead of Pedro Feliz) against righties, and the difference between Stairs and Jenkins is marginal. So I'll just say this: If Dobbs isn't in the lineup for Game 2, Manuel has probably messed up. Otherwise, everything's copacetic.

• Among the many good things about the Yankees' absence from the current festivities: Tyler Kepner is available for other duties, including this profile of Phillies president David Montgomery. Guy seems like a genuine fan from way back.

• Before we get completely wrapped up in the World Series, why not review the ALCS with our friend Rich Lederer?

• Have you ever heard of Bill Zepp? No? I hadn't, either. But that's why we read Joe Posnanski. To learn stuff.

• Speaking of learning stuff, somehow I've completely missed Willy Aybar's backstory. Jon Weisman didn't.

• We've noted the massive improvement in the Rays' defense this year; they went from last in the majors in defensive efficiency in 2007 -- the percentage of batted balls they turned into outs -- to first in the majors in 2008. But that wasn't their only massive improvement. As Jay Jaffe details in Baseball Prospectus ($), the Rays' bullpen has also made a historic turnaround. After last year's disastrous 6.16 ERA, management brought in a bunch of new relievers, as you might expect. And they've performed well. But the bullpen almost had to get better this year regardless of who was pitching, because last year the guys who pitched were incredibly unlucky.

Last year, non-Tampa Bay relievers in the American League gave up 8.8 hits per nine inning. Tampa Bay relievers gave up nearly 11 hits per nine innings. That's a stunning number. And in case you're wondering, it wasn't because of strikeouts (or lack thereof); non-Rays relievers struck out 7.3 per nine innings, and Rays struck out 7.2 per nine innings. How does one explain the Rays? Last year they were unlucky, then last winter they added some better players, and this year they've been lucky. That's how you go from worst to first.

• Video of the Week: It's been 28 years and I still haven't quite recovered from the 1980 World Series, but Kelly Ripa mispronouncing "Schmidt" really does take some of the hurt away.

(H/T: BallHype)

• Cheese and crackers! I almost forgot … Monday in this space, I questioned Terry Francona's unwillingness to pinch-hit for Jason Varitek in the seventh inning of Game 7. Well, it's even worse than I thought. They were carrying a third catcher, Dave Ross, on the roster. If Francona had lifted Varitek for a left-handed hitter -- Jacoby Ellsbury or Sean Casey -- and Maddon had responded with a lefty reliever, Francona could have countered with Ross, who's got some real power against the southpaws and could have stayed in the game to catch. I can see the case for bringing Varitek back next season. But only if Francona can temper his usually admirable loyalty.

It was easy to miss last week, amidst all the drama: the Brewers have essentially fired Dale Sveum after only 16 games. You can probably imagine Sveum's reaction:

"My heart was ripped out of my chest," Sveum said. "I was shocked.
"I thanked him [Brewers GM Doug Melvin] for the opportunity. Now, I'm in a tough situation. I'm out of a job. The most disappointing part of it all is that I'm no longer going to wear a Brewers uniform. That's the toughest part. I loved the Brewers and the organization."
Sveum said Melvin told him he decided to look for somebody with more experience. There's not much Sveum can do about that because he never managed in the big leagues until those final 12 games with the Brewers.
"I just wish there wasn't so much emphasis put on veteran managers," Sveum said. "I'll match my knowledge of baseball and my ability to slow the game down with anybody."

I've never seen a manager's in-game job described exactly that way: "to slow the game down." I like it. How many times, when confronted with a surprising situation, have you done or said something that, upon later reflection, you knew was stupid? But it's not that you're stupid. Everything just happened too fast, and then the irrational parts of our brain take control because we have to, you know, do something.

Or nothing. I think that's what happened to Joe Maddon in Game 5 of the ALCS. The Rays were up 7-0 in the seventh inning, and a moment later David Ortiz was standing at the plate with a shot at making the score 7-4, and I'm sure if you ask Maddon in 20 years if he should have brought in a lefty from the bullpen, he'll say, of course, he should have. But everything happened so fast, and never in his entire life had Maddon been in exactly that situation. Few men have.

Anyway, about Sveum … By any objective standard to which we're privy, he deserves to manage the Brewers next year. But the Brewers know him better than we do. They fired Ned Yost, and that worked out OK. They've fired Dale Sveum, and that might work out OK, too. But they'd better get this next one right, otherwise they're going to look pretty foolish.

We may shed a tear or two for Dale Sveum, but this is baseball; next spring he'll be wearing a uniform in Arizona or Florida, and be around a boy's game. There are worse things.

Good to see that Tim Marchman wasn't out of work for long. His take on your American League champions:

What makes the Rays so good? Start with defense. The Rays ranked first in baseball in defensive efficiency this year, which measures how many balls in play they turn into outs. Jason Bartlett, a great-field/no-hit shortstop of a kind that's been out of fashion for at least a decade, showed how they do it in the second inning, materializing from the ether behind second base to rob Mark Kotsay of a base hit. You won't see ostentatious dives from the Rays, but you will see them in areas of the field they have no business being in. Bartlett, left fielder Carl Crawford, first baseman Carlos Pena, and second baseman Akinori Iwamura all rated among the top three in the league at their positions in making plays outside of their zones -- that is, ranging beyond the space they're supposed to cover to corral balls that would otherwise go for fits. With all those great fielders, the Rays play like they have 10 men on the field.
--snip--
Defense and pitching are to baseball what transparency and accountability are to politics: Is there anyone who's not in favor of them? Of course, there's also virtue in hitting the living hell out of the ball. The main reason the Rays won is that they set an ALCS record for most home runs in a series, doing so against a fine Boston pitching staff. The Rays aren't, from one angle, a team of power hitters; they have five everyday players who hit fewer than 10 home runs this year. On the other hand, they did hit 180 long balls this year, as many as the Yankees, and they have a surprising depth of power, with bench hitters and platoon guys like Ben Zobrist and Willy Aybar -- who hit a crucial home run in Game 7 that turned a 2-1 lead into a 3-1 gap -- up in the double digits. As Joe Torre said last week, the Rays have sneaky power.

They do have sneaky power, but it's probably worth mentioning that their ALCS record is sort of a fluke, right? The Red Sox gave up only 147 homers all season, and then they give up 16 in seven games? Carlos Pena hit 31 homers in 139 games this year, and Evan Longoria hit 27 in 122 games. The Rays' No. 3 power threat, Eric Hinske, hit 20 homers in only 381 at-bats … and hasn't been on a postseason roster yet.

What makes the Rays' offense work isn't (usually) power. It's consistency, one through nine. I just saw a quote (here) from Theo Epstein:

"What we like to do is be league average at every position, and then be way above league average at as many positions as we can. We try to have no weak links and be at least league average at every position."

And that's almost what the Red Sox did this year. After getting Julio Lugo out of the lineup, their only weak link was Jason Varitek. Do the Rays have any weak links? Not really. Jason Bartlett isn't much of a hitter, but when you consider defense he's a league-average shortstop. Carl Crawford was a weak link during the season, but he's outstanding in left field and his entire body of work as a hitter suggests that he's better than his 2008 numbers suggest. Meanwhile, the Rays are way above average at third base (Longoria) and first base (Pena).

So why did the Rays score only 774 runs, just ninth best in the league?

Bad luck, mostly. The Rays finished with the fourth-best on-base percentage and the eighth-best slugging percentage, and that was with only two of their key hitters playing 140 or more games, and with B.J. Upton playing all season but suffering much of the time from a shoulder injury (from which he seems to have really, really healed). On balance, I suspect that right now Tampa's offense is the fifth-best in the American League.

Marchman is absolutely right about the Rays' defense, and perhaps not enough has been said for management's decision to move Iwamura from third base to second. Could they have known he'd be as good as he's been? I do suspect that Marchman overstates Iwamura's case somewhat, but that's beside the point. We come back to Epstein's notion about weak links, and it's almost impossible to find a weak link in the Rays' defense. Throw in a pitching staff that ranked second in the American League in ERA and fourth in strikeouts, and Tampa Bay's 97 wins begin to make sense.

You wonder why everyone's picking the Rays to beat the Phillies? Probably because they don't have any glaring weaknesses and they play in the Big Boy League.

Aside from the usual vagaries of blind chance, my only question about the Rays is their bullpen. The regular-season numbers were excellent, but with the absence of Troy Percival and the sudden emergence of David Price, Joe Maddon seems to be working his way through things game by game. Maybe that's good. Maybe flexibility and creativity are exactly the prescription at this point in the season. But it definitely adds an element of unpredictability.

After a game like Sunday night's, it's fair to wonder what might have been.

The Red Sox lost by two runs, and in the last three innings they left six runners on base. Couldn't Terry Francona have done something other that what he actually did?

Entering the game, there were two Red Sox in the lineup who figured as serious candidates for being removed for a pinch-hitter if Boston really truly needed to score a run or two: shortstop Alex Cora and catcher/captain Jason Varitek.

Before you cite Cora's stats this season, let me stop you … I know he posted an impressive .371 OBP, but that number's a mirage. He's 33, and his career on-base percentage -- the number that matters -- is .313. And no, the lefty-hitting Cora isn't effective against right-handed pitchers; his career numbers are worse against righties than lefties. Cora is what he is: a light-hitting utility infielder who should start rarely, and be allowed to hit with a game on the line almost never. Frankly, I'm surprised that the Red Sox have found room for Cora on their roster for these last 3½ seasons.

But while it's not at all obvious why Cora was in the lineup instead of Jed Lowrie, he batted just once in a key moment, leading off the eighth inning against right-hander Matt Garza. Lowrie probably should have entered the game then, but Cora did reach base via Jason Bartlett's error. And when Cora's turn came up again in the ninth, Lowrie did bat for him (and slapped a grounder up the middle that Akinori Iwamura turned into the pennant-clinching out).

So let's turn to Varitek, who went 0-for-4 with three strikeouts.

Would you like to guess how many times this season Varitek was lifted for a pinch-hitter in a close game?

Zero times. He came out of a number of games that were out of hand (one way or the other). A couple of times, he was lifted for a pinch-runner when a run meant something. But Varitek was never pulled, not even once, to get a better bat into the lineup.

It did happen in the postseason, though. Three times:

• In Game 3 of their Division Series against the Angels, Varitek was due to lead off the ninth inning with the score 4-4 and right-hander Scot Shields on the mound, and was lifted in favor of J.D. Drew (who struck out).

• In Game 2 of the ALCS, Varitek, due to lead off the ninth inning with the score 8-8 and right-hander Dan Wheeler on the mound, was again bumped for Drew (who flied out).

• In Game 5 -- this was the big comeback game -- Varitek was replaced by Sean Casey, again with Wheeler on the mound. Casey struck out.

It seems that Francona, after an entire season, finally decided he didn't want Varitek facing right-handed pitchers in key spots. Understandably. This season, Varitek raked southpaws but was helpless against righties. It's just one season, of course, but Varitek's been better against left-handers for his whole career.

As it happens, the Red Sox bench Sunday night consisted of the following: left-handed hitters Casey and Jacoby Ellsbury, neither of whom was going to pinch-hit against a left-handed pitcher; Lowrie, who was being reserved to replace Cora; and backup catcher Kevin Cash. And the next time you see Cash pinch-hit for Varitek in a big spot, you should call your neighbors and tell them to turn the game on.

So let's consider Varitek's two key at-bats in Game 7.

The first came in the bottom of the seventh, with the Red Sox trailing 2-1. There were runners on first and third, two outs. Right-hander Matt Garza was still on the mound, having thrown only 12 pitches in the inning but 112 in the game. Francona could have pinch-hit with Casey or Ellsbury. If Joe Maddon had countered with lefty reliever Trever Miller, Francona could have counter-countered with the switch-hitting Lowrie, or with Cash. It would have been a tough spot for Cash, but he would have had to enter the game anyway, to catch. And at this point, Cash against a lefty is probably a better bet than Varitek against a righty, and at the very least you force the other manager to dig into his bullpen earlier than he would prefer.

But Francona didn't see it that way. After the game he said, "They've got double-barrel in the bullpen. We're going to end up with a matchup that doesn't work."

Speaking of which, Varitek struck out.

The second at-bat came in the ninth against lefty David Price. Varitek struck out again. As Gerry Fraley points out in the Boston Globe, "This time, Francona had no viable alternative. His best bats on the bench were left-handed hitters: Jacoby Ellsbury and Sean Casey. Varitek struck out. The manager always looks bad when that happens."

Indeed. Varitek, the second-weakest hitter in the lineup (after Cora), struck out three times in Game 7. The manager does look bad. Maybe there simply wasn't anything to be done. But if there was, he didn't do it.

Is Moneyball really the stuff of movies? According to Variety, some pretty important people seem to think so:

Brad Pitt is adding to his busy schedule by playing ball for Columbia.
Steve Zaillian has signed on to adapt Michael Lewis' nonfiction bestseller Moneyball: The Art of Winning an Unfair Game, and David Frankel is attached to direct. Project is being developed as a potential starring vehicle for Brad Pitt.
--snip--
Stan Chervin penned an earlier draft based of the book, which Sony optioned in 2004. "Moneyball" was first published by W. W. Norton in 2003.

These are some heavy hitters.

Having Brad Pitt supposedly involved doesn't mean much at this point -- actors are always said to be "attached" to movies in which they don't appear. And of course that's if the movie's actually made, and most of them aren't; it's a weird business.

But Zaillian, while far from a household name, has a long string of produced scripts, including films directed by Steven Spielberg, Martin Scorsese, Ridley Scott, and Brian DePalma; he won an Oscar for writing Schindler's List and was nominated for writing Gangs of New York. In the world of screenwriting, they don't come much bigger than Steve Zaillian.

And Frankel's two recent features -- The Devil Wears Prada and the upcoming Marley & Me -- are both big-budget movies with plenty of star power.

But how do you turn Moneyball into a movie? I don't have the slightest idea. I believe the earlier script, which of course was never produced, featured a Billy Beane-like character and an imaginary daughter who wound up running the franchise with the help of an abacus and her talking cat (voice by Andy Dick).

Presumably Zaillian's going to cut the talking cat. But movies are mostly about action, while Michael Lewis' book is almost completely about an idea. Sure, the scene with Billy Beane throwing a chair writes itself. But Scott Hatteberg's wife hitting grounders to him on the tennis court? Chad Bradford practicing submarine pitching for hundreds of hours? Paul DePodesta analyzing Excel files?

I just don't know how you make this story work on the big screen. But then, there's a reason why Zaillian's a millionaire many times over and I'm not. I hope he figures it out.

(H/T: BTF's Newsstand)

Joe Posnanski likes James Shields. He really does. But for the life of him, Joe can't figure out how Shields got his nickname …

I'm a big James Shields fan. Big. I remember before the start of the year having an argument with a pretty prominent baseball guy about him. He said Shields was just another guy, a middle-of-the-rotation, third-starter, fourth-starter guy. I didn't feel that way at all. I said that he was one of the better pitchers in the American League. Shields was a big reason why I predicted that the Rays would be a contender in 2008. And yes, I'm going to break my arm patting myself on the back again.
That said, I have NO idea how he got this ridiculous "Big Game James" nickname. Big Game James was Lakers forward James Worthy, who averaged 21 points and shot 54 percent in the playoffs. He was the MVP of the 1988 finals. He was Big Game James. He earned that, you know, by playing well in big games.
Shields? I'm going to pull out my inner Biden here … I've already told you I love the guy, but this has to be the most inappropriate nickname in sports since Andre Rison decided, rather bizarrely, to call himself Spiderman. How many big games has James Shields played in? He was a 16th round pick in high school. He pitched for Hudson Valley, Charleston, Bakersfield, Montgomery and Durham for the better part of five years. He came up to a terrible Rays team, pitched pretty well. So there are 0.00 big games in those years.
--snip--
And make no mistake: the nickname was already prominent -- certainly in the eyes of the TBS announcers -- when the playoffs began. Big Game James started Game 1 of the American League Division Series -- his first, legitimately, big game -- and he went 6 1/3 innings, gave up a three-run homer to Dewayne Wise, but won the game because Evan Longoria -- whose name should be "James" because he actually HAS has had big games in big games -- hit two home runs.
Shields then pitched Game 1 of the American League Championship Series, and he pitched quite well -- 7 1/3 innings, two runs -- though he lost.The announcers must have called him "Big Game James" about 25 times during the game. Joe the Plumber didn't get that much nickname love.
Then, Joe Maddon skipped James in Game 5 for Scott Kazmir (who was electrifying). I think that was probably a good move by Maddon … Shields got absolutely lit up his only appearance at Fenway, and he has been much, much better at home (9-2, 2.59 ERA, .351 slugging against) than on the road (5-6, 4.82 ERA, .477 slugging against). But the point for our purposes is simple: I'm not sure you can keep the "Big Game James" thing going once a manager skips your start. Isn't that a disqualifier? I suspect that Christy Mathewson didn't get skipped much.

I snipped the section where Posnanski goes through Shields' career in the majors and establishes that no, he really hasn't pitched in many big games. Nevertheless, in this article from a couple of weeks ago, Carlos Pena said of Shields' performance in Game 1 of the Rays' Division Series, "He's been doing that all year."

Pitching well, yes. Pitching particularly well in big games, not so much.

So there are two ways to explain Shields' nickname, and neither of them has anything to do with his performance.

One: It rhymes. Never underestimate the power of the rhyme. Remember Mark "Hard-Hittin'" Whiten? He finished his career with a .415 slugging percentage.

Two: His manager and his teammates believe it. Or they want him to believe it. In Orel Hershiser's 1989 autobiography, he essentially begins his book with a story -- the details of which don't check out, but hey, nobody's perfect -- about the day Tommy Lasorda gave him a nickname. Hershiser, then a rookie, hadn't been going after the hitters, hadn't been trusting his stuff. Hershiser thought he might be getting sent back to the minors. But no; Lasorda just wanted to work his psychological magic …

I've seen guys come and go, son, and you've got it! You gotta go out there and do it on the mound! Take charge! Make 'em hit your best stuff! Be aggressive. Be a bulldog out there. That's gonna be your new name: Bulldog. You know, when we bring you in in the ninth to face Dale Murphy and he hears, "Now pitching, Orel Hershiser," man, he can't wait till you get there! But if he hears, "Now pitching, Bulldog Hershiser," he's thinkin', Oh, no, who's that!? Murphy's gonna be scared to death!

We can't know what would have happened if Lasorda had never given Hershiser a pep talk, and a nickname. But that's a story worth repeating only because Hershiser soon afterward became one of the best pitchers in the National League. This "Big Game James" stuff is harmless, but I suspect it'll eventually be forgotten unless Shields actually pitches brilliantly in a few big games. And beginning Saturday night, he'll have at least one more chance this month.

Welcome to another abbreviated Link-O-Rama, this one via the home office in Toledo, Ohio:

• Between Friday morning and Saturday evening (and perhaps beyond), you're going to hear a great deal about momentum. Me? I don't put a great deal of stock in it. Not in baseball. If momentum's so important, then how did the Red Sox come back from seven runs down in the first place? Shouldn't they have just rolled over, those last few innings? Because the Rays had as much momentum, in both the series and the game, as you'll see a team have. Does the Red Sox's newfound momentum mean more, because they've been in this spot before? Perhaps. I'm smart enough to know there are things I don't know. But in this case, what I don't know will likely be smashed by the starting pitchers in Game 6.

• Meanwhile, the Phillies can only wait. In the Times, Tyler Kepner writes about how these Phillies were built. And Kepner does mention that the pipeline that's been supplying the Phillies with good young players seems to have just about dried up.

• Not the Rays, though. You think they've got a lot of young talent on the field now? As Kevin Gengler writes, you ain't seen nothing yet.

• As you might have heard, the Red Sox's comeback Thursday night was the second-largest ever, and the largest since 1929. But you want details! I've got them. From one of my old books, a recap of the greatest comeback, which happened in Game 4 of the 1929 World Series

If it had been two New York teams, or for that matter any two teams in the age of television, Game 4 might be the most famous of them all. Ancient spitballer Jack Quinn started for the A's, and the Cubs jumped all over him, while Philadelphia could do nothing against Chicago's Charlie Root. So heading into the bottom of the seventh inning, the score was Cubs 8, Athletics 0.
Then, disaster for the Cubs. Al Simmons led off with a home run to bust up Root's shutout, and five of the next six hitters singled. Cubs manager Joe McCarty summoned Art Nehf from the bullpen, and he was greeted with a fly ball off the bat of Mule Haas. But center fielder Hack Wilson lost the ball in the sun, and Haas circled the bases for an inside-the-park home run. That made the score 8-7, and the A's weren't finished yet. They pasted two more relief pitchers and wound up scoring 10 runs in the inning. [A's manager Connie] Mack called on Lefty Grove, who tossed two shutout innings to seal the most improbable victory in Series history.

There's nothing like reading a bunch of lame crud you wrote nine years ago. Anyway, you get the idea. Oh, and you might have heard that Jamie Moyer is the second-oldest pitcher to start a postseason game? The oldest remains Jack Quinn, who was 46 when he started that fateful Game 4. And Moyer? It'll be a whole 'nother year before he's ancient.

• As you might also have heard, we haven't heard the last of Barry Bonds, as the Players Association claims to have evidence that teams colluded to keep Bonds out of the majors. Oddly, though, the union is not filing a grievance, and in fact there's an agreement to "delay the filing of any grievance."

Why the agreement? From Murray Chass (who apparently broke the story):

When it believes it has a case, the union doesn't usually delay filing a grievance. Considering its history with collusion and the fact that Bonds is a high-profile player, it would seem more likely that the union would act as quickly as possible.
In this instance, though, the union is waiting, a baseball official said, for Bonds to get beyond the trial he faces on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice stemming from his grand jury testimony in the Balco case.

This makes sense, I suppose. But why would the MLBPA show its hand at this point, at all? My first thought was that the union does have evidence, and MLB realizes they'll have to spend some money to make this go away, and now it's just a matter of coming up with a number everyone can live with. But that explanation strikes me as too obvious. So, stay tuned. This is obviously a developing story …

Immediately after the Los Angeles Dodgers were knocked out of the tournament Wednesday night -- even though Manny Ramirez put on another great show -- the questions started: What will happen to Manny now? (Actually, they started before that; a number of people asked those questions during the game while I was chatting.)

Here's Bruce Jenkins' take:

I was strolling the aisles of a Malibu supermarket a few years back when I spotted Bruce Springsteen, all by himself. I couldn't help lingering at a distance, just to see if anyone approached him, but no one did. It's like that in the ritzier regions of Southern California. In a land where everyone fancies himself a celebrity, excessive fawning is just not cool.
This is why Manny Ramirez has found the perfect setting for his most unusual brand of genius. Repulsed by the city of Boston, never tempted by a return to New York (he attended high school in Upper Manhattan), he has found peace and tranquility with the Dodgers. Now we're about to watch it all get destroyed by the business of baseball.
The Dodgers can't afford to let Ramirez leave town as a free agent, but they can't afford to keep him, either, from a financial or practical standpoint. They were just another terrible team in the National League West until Manny arrived, and he couldn't personally overwhelm the vastly superior Phillies in the League Championship Series that concluded Wednesday night.
--snip--
The problem is that Ramirez might as well be Springsteen right now. He's simply unstoppable as a hitter, resembling the vintage Barry Bonds in the Giants' 2002 run to the World Series. His departure would trigger a veritable mutiny among L.A. fans, who thrive on big-name talent and big-time deeds.

The general theme of Jenkins' column is that although it would be nice to have Ramirez back next season, the Dodgers need to spend their money on other things (pitching, mostly). Plus, Scott Boras is looking for a six-year contract, and it'll be foolish to sign Ramirez for so many years.

I agree on all points. The Dodgers already have four outfielders on the depth chart. Two of them (Matt Kemp and Andre Ethier) are so good they have to play, and two of them (Andruw Jones and Juan Pierre) are so well-paid they won't be released and (probably) can't be traded. Even if you forget that inconvenient fact, does anyone think that Manny Ramirez will be playable in left field when he's 40? He already is one of the very worst outfielders in the majors and will get older, slower and more apathetic.

My only quibble is with Jenkins' suggestion that the Dodgers "can't afford to let Ramirez leave town" because that "would trigger a veritable mutiny among L.A. fans."

In 2005, when the Dodgers lost 91 games and finished in fourth place, they led the National League in attendance.

In 2006, when the Dodgers failed to qualify for the postseason, they led the National League in attendance.

In 2007, when the Dodgers finished in fourth place, they led the National League in attendance.

If there's any franchise in the majors that doesn't have to worry about a mutiny, it's this one. Yes, Manny Ramirez goosed attendance and enthusiasm at Dodger Stadium this summer. But the Los Angeles Dodgers are far, far bigger than just one player. They have been since they arrived 50 years ago and always will be.

Joe Maddon's made a last-minute change:

The Tampa Bay Rays will start Scott Kazmir in Game 5 of the American League Championship Series instead of James Shields, Rays manager Joe Maddon announced Wednesday.
Shields will be pushed back to Game 6, if needed, Maddon said, because he wants Shields to pitch at home, where he is "very good."
--snip--
The move also allows Kazmir to avoid any run-ins with veteran umpire Derryl Cousins, who is scheduled to work behind the plate in Game 6. Kazmir had angry words for Cousins following a June 11 game against the Angels, accusing the umpire of missing strike calls during key at-bats and making makeup calls. Maddon was ejected for arguing balls and strikes with Cousins during that game.
"That was unbelievable. I've never seen anything like that before," Kazmir said after that game. "I mean, you come into the game and some of the veteran guys are talking about an umpire that doesn't like calling anybody out on strikes. They called him 'shoe box.' You shouldn't change your zone just because of the count."
Cousins, informed that Kazmir had called his performance "unbelievable," "ridiculous" and "amazing," had his own words for the left-hander, according to the St. Petersburg Times.
"I didn't know he's been around that long," Cousins, a 28-year veteran, said after that game, according to the Times. "I've got nothing to say. ... It won't be the first time or the last time that he says something."

What Maddon doesn't say (at least here) is that Shields has been very bad at Fenway Park. In three career starts there, he's 0-3 with a 10.12 ERA. Granted, he's given up just one home run and his strikeouts (10) and walks (3) are perfectly fine. But we do tend to focus on ERA. And Shields has been quite good at Tropicana Field in his career: 19-8, 3.25.

Meanwhile, Kazmir has been very good at Fenway. And it's a significantly larger (if not necessarily significant) sample size; in 11 starts -- far more than he has anywhere else outside of Florida -- Kazmir's posted a 3.02 ERA, striking out 68 in 63 innings while giving up only four home runs.

I know that some of you are wondering why Joe Maddon doesn't go for the throat, right now. Finish off the Red Sox, kick them while they're down. All things considered, Shields probably does give the Rays a better shot at winning Game 5. But -- and oh by the way, we go through this thought process every year -- if Shields is going to pitch, does it really matter so much if he pitches in Game 5 or Game 6?*

* Disclaimer: For the most part, I don't believe momentum matters much in a best-of-seven series.

Also, would it be the worst thing for the Rays to clinch at home, before (finally) a real full house?

Today's Wangdoodles were routed through the home office's satellite office in Fargo, North Dakota …

• It's no fun writing this because he's long been one of my favorites, but I'll be shocked if we ever see Tim Wakefield start another postseason game. Since winning both of his NLCS starts as a rookie in 1992, Wakefield has started nine postseason games (all for the Red Sox), and his record in those games is 2-6 with a 7.93 ERA. Both wins came against the Yankees in 2003, but otherwise he's been knocked around every time. Wakefield still has some value as an innings-eater, and at $4 million per season for as long as the Red Sox want him, he might actually be a bargain. What we saw Tuesday night, though? We won't see it again. Not this October. Not next October. Not any October.

• Meanwhile, David Ortiz is struggling and Alan Schwarz is writing about it. Maybe he's not healthy. Maybe he's just having a tough couple of weeks. I don't know. But I can't help but notice that the greatest clutch hitter in history and the greatest postseason pitcher are both really having problems lately. Are they different this time around? Or were they simply never quite what we thought they were …

• How much credit does Chuck LaMar deserve for the Rays' success? Before you answer, read this.

• You're probably aware that the Giants haven't developed a good young hitter since Rich Aurilia, many years ago. Unless you count Fred Lewis (and maybe you should). Granted, they do have some promising youngsters now, especially switch-hitters Emmanuel Burriss and Pablo Sandoval. But do they really have so many good young players that they can afford to give away 23-year-old second baseman Travis Denker? Anyway, the Padres seem thrilled to have him.

• In bigger Padres news, Kevin Towers isn't exactly denying that he's more than willing to entertain offers for Jake Peavy this winter, as Peavy will become too expensive in 2010 ($15 million) for a team that lost 99 games in 2008.

• Fishstripes highlights a passage from a piece in The Wall Street Journal that includes discouraging news (for the Marlins) about the Marlins' proposed new ballpark.

• Looks like we're going to see more of David Price this fall than I thought. To prepare yourself, check out Josh Kalk's peek (Reader's Digest Condensed Version: Lots of fastballs and sliders).

Longtime (since 1974) Mets writer Marty Noble answers his mail:

How could you put David Wright ahead of Carlos Delgado as the Mets' most valuable player? Delgado got them back in the race almost singlehandedly, and Wright let them down. Wright never hit big home runs like Delgado did. I'm tired of people in the media trying to make Wright into some kind of superstar when his teammates outproduce him all the time.

-- Sandy F., Westwood, N.J.

So you think Delgado outproduced Wright "all of the time." And that declaration is based on what exactly? No question Delgado had a remarkable run once he began to hit. But that happened on June 27, by which time the Mets had played 77 games, nearly half their season. The argument can be made that though Delgado's run carried them back into the race, the Mets might have been in first place or closer to it -- they had a 38-39 record and were in third place, 3 1/2 games back -- had he had not been invisible in his first 280 at-bats.

At that point, Delgado was in the midst of a poor season, batting .229 with a .306 on-base percentage and a .396 slugging percentage. He had scored 36 runs and driven in 35.

At the same point, Wright had 297 at-bats and had scored 46 runs and driven in 59. His batting average, on-base percentage and slugging percentage were .276, .373 and .488, respectively. Evidently, your "all the time" doesn't cover that extended period.

Moreover, Wright led the team with 124 RBIs, scored 115 runs (second to Carlos Beltran) and hit 33 home runs. At the same time, Delgado drove in 115 (second to Wright), scored 96 and hit 38 home runs, leading the team in the latter category. If you believe in runs produced (RBIs plus runs minus home runs) -- and I do -- that puts Wright's production at 206 and Delgado's at 173.

Wright never had an extended period in which he was as unproductive as Delgado was before he regained his timing. Wright didn't have his best season. He had batted .304 with a .504 slugging percentage with runners in scoring position in the three previous seasons, and batted .243 and slugged .376 in 2008. But at least some of that decline can be attributed to his batting third for all but seven at-bats and the batters following him -- Beltran and Delgado -- not hitting well for extended periods.

Now, about the "big" home runs. Delgado hit three that tied the score and seven that gave the Mets a lead. Wright hit two that tied the score ... and 10 that put the Mets ahead.

Beyond all that, Wright runs the bases better than Delgado and, while recognizing the errors Delgado saved Wright, Wright's defense clearly is superior to that which Delgado provided -- even after Delgado's defense appeared to improve after Willie Randolph was dismissed.

I don't particularly "believe" in runs produced, but I do admire Noble's work here. Especially the note about the "big" home runs, and the acknowledgement that hey, maybe baserunning and defense should count for something, too!

But while I absolutely agree that Wright was better (and more valuable) than Delgado, I don't see any reason to stop there. Not that win shares are everything, but among the Mets, Delgado finishes a fairly distant fourth. Delgado's got 24 (pretty good for a guy who didn't start hitting until July), well behind not only Wright and Jose Reyes -- with 29 apiece -- but also Carlos Beltran, with 33.

Wright, Reyes and Beltran all scored more runs than Delgado.

Wright drove in more runs than Delgado; Beltran drove in almost as many.

Wright, Reyes and Beltran all were more valuable, defensively. In fact, among those three, Wright had the least defensive value. Reyes was decent at shortstop, and Beltran did his usual Gold Glove-quality work in center field. Honestly, I don't know which of them was the most valuable. But I'm about 98 percent sure that two of them were. And quite probably all three.

This is probably the last time we'll speak of this matter. But if the Mets had won two more games this season, they'd have qualified for the playoffs, the real MVP voters would have been looking for a Met to vote for, and Delgado might have been the guy because he did come up big after the All-Star break. In a sense, this is the general MVP discussion in a microcosm. Is the Most Valuable Player the player who makes the greatest all-around contribution for six months? Or is he the one-dimensional player who gives his team two or three great months?

We'll find out in a few weeks.

Brewers owner Mark Attanasio addresses the fans:

As many of you know, I work in the investment field, and I can't help identifying some measuring facts in this end-of-season letter. A record 3,068,458 of you passed through the turnstiles this season. Of 81 home games, 44 were sold out (including 22 in a row), ranking us ninth in all of MLB in attendance. More fans came to see the Brewers than went to games in Boston, in San Francisco, or on the South Side of Chicago to see the White Sox. Your support has helped translate into the most home wins for any National League club over the past four years. Millions watched our telecasts, listened to us on the radio, or followed us on the Internet. Specifically, on FSN Wisconsin, the Brewers were the top-rated prime time show 44 times out of 80 nights this season. These ratings place us in the top-tier of all clubs, and the number of Internet pages viewed on brewers.com also place us eighth among MLB teams. Clearly, the Brewers transcended Wisconsin and garnered a significant amount of national interest. You again helped send a sizable contingent of Brewers to the All-Star Game -- Ben Sheets, Ryan Braun, and Corey Hart -- all of whom were drafted and developed through our Minor League system. We are fortunate that this year, Ryan Braun -- the 2007 National League Rookie of the Year -- has committed to be a Brewer through 2015.
--snip--
This letter would not be complete without special thanks to Doug Melvin, our talented and tireless General Manager, who was the architect of this team that won 90 regular season games this season. Doug took over a team that had only 56 wins in 2002, and it has steadily improved under his direction and leadership, as well as from the hard work of his staff, which includes Assistant General Manager Gord Ash and Special Assistant to the GM for Player Personnel Jack Zduriencik. The improvement in our team's performance is also a reflection of the efforts of Ned Yost -- who also worked diligently for the team since 2002 and led us to our first 83 wins this season -- and Dale Sveum, who recorded the final eight wins.

I don't know thing one about Mark Attanasio. But if all I knew was what I read in this letter, I'd say he's a pretty classy guy, and Brewers fans are lucky to have him.

I do know this: Finishing ninth in the majors in attendance is an awesome accomplishment for the Brewers. At last count, Greater Milwaukee is the 38th most populous Metropolitan Statistical Area in the U.S. Among the more populous areas: Portland, Sacramento, San Antonio, Indianapolis, and Austin-Round Rock.

In that market, the Brewers have to play well, and draw well. For the moment, at least, they're doing exactly that.

The Los Angeles Times' Bill Plaschke knows why the Dodgers lost last night.

Are you ready?

They don't have enough pitching depth …

You want to give Manny Ramirez five more years and $100 million?
Then you better be able to explain why Frank McCourt should not use that same money to improve the sort of pitching depth that probably just cost them their season.
On a night when Ramirez was perfect, the Dodgers lost to the imperfections of a pitching staff that relied on the old, the tired and the predictable.
--snip--
If you want to blame someone, blame the organization for having to start Lowe on short rest in the first place. The Dodgers have one of the best pitching staffs in baseball, yet don't have a fourth pitcher for a playoff rotation?
The Phillies, starting Joe Blanton, didn't have this problem. The Dodgers shouldn't have this problem. This is the night when the absence of Jason Schmidt and Brad Penny finally came back to haunt them. They need an ace starting pitcher more than they need a Manny Ramirez.
Lowe's departure then highlighted another Dodgers issue -- veteran bullpen depth.
"This time of year, I always say, it comes down to the bullpen," said Lowe.
First up, rookie Clayton Kershaw, making only his third relief appearance of the season. In a one-run NLCS game? A kid who has never pitched in a real game past September?
Kershaw walked the struggling Ryan Howard, gave up a single and bunt and was gone.
Only to be replaced by another guy who wasn't ready for this role, Chan-Ho Park.
One wild pitch later, the game was tied.
--snip--
But in the eighth, even after an out by Joe Beimel and a sizzling three outs by lefty Hong-Chih Kuo, the game was given to Cory Wade.
Great kid, great story, dead tired arm. Wade had thrown 33 pitches Sunday night and clearly wasn't ready for the eighth inning Monday.
After Howard led off the inning with a single against Kuo, in came Wade, and one out later Victorino lined a fastball into the right-field seats to tie the game.
"There was no excuse for … I mean, he's been a great pitcher for us," said Torre of Wade. "He was ready to go."
Not quite, and this is what happens when you have to overwork a setup guy who began the season at double-A Jacksonville.
All of which led to the appearance by Broxton, who is slowly showing the Dodgers that perhaps he is not next year's closer, and with Takashi Saito injured, who will be?

Yes, the Phillies' fourth starter is Joe Blanton. The Dodgers' fourth starter, if Torre had chosen to employ one, would have been Clayton Kershaw (5-5, 4.26) or Greg Maddux (8-13, 4.22). Most teams would be thrilled to have either of them; in fact, I suspect that if the Phillies had had either of them this summer, they wouldn't have traded for Joe Blanton.

I will say this: Plaschke might be right about Cory Wade. This season he threw more than 25 pitches in 13 games. After each of those games, he had at least one day off before Torre asked him to pitch again. Usually it was more than one day. Torre might have overreached just a little bit, using Wade again so quickly.

Otherwise, though? Yesterday I mentioned this in passing, but let me be very clear today: Ned Colletti and Joe Torre have assembled and employed a great bullpen. As a group, Dodger relievers finished second in the National League in ERA, first in strikeouts, first in strikeout-to-walk ratio, and first in batting average allowed. As for depth, the Dodgers have six relievers who threw at least 47 innings, and the highest ERA among them was Chan Ho Park's 3.40.

True, Plaschke specifies veteran bullpen depth … but Takashi Saito is 38, Joe Beimel is 31, and Chan Ho Park is 35. Broxton's only 24, but this was his third full season in the majors. Sure, it's easy to suggest that Torre should have used different pitchers Monday night. After the fact. But he's been making the right moves all season, and I have a hard time identifying any particular move last night that seems wrong.

Sometimes you make the right moves and you still get beat. I think that's what happened last night, with Torre and his relievers. As for Torre and his unwillingness to use a fourth starter, it's worth noting that Derek Lowe pitched five innings and gave up two runs, while Joe Blanton pitched five innings and gave up three runs (and was lucky to give up only three).

I wouldn't give Manny Ramirez five years and $100 million, either. But my reasons have absolutely nothing to do with Game 4 of the 2008 National League Championship Series.

Today, just a few Mendozas from the sleepy home office in Niles, Michigan …

• By most objective measures, Terry Francona is an excellent manager. Sure, his Philadelphia teams weren't so hot. But since he took over as Boston's manager in 2004, there hasn't been a better team in the majors, as the Red Sox have not only won more regular-season games than anyone, they've also gone 26-11 in postseason games and (of course) won two World Series. Francona gets a great deal of credit for that record, and deserves it.

But it's not easy to defend his decisions in the first two games of this ALCS. In Game 1, he sent Daisuke Matsuzaka back to the mound in the bottom of the eighth, after Matsuzaka had 1) thrown 107 pitches already, 2) escaped a tight jam in the seventh, and 3) sat on the bench during a long top of the eighth. I haven't been as surprised by a managerial non-move since Grady Little failed to pull Pedro Martinez five years ago.

Francona didn't pull Dice-K until the first Rays singled. Somewhat improbably, the bullpen did preserve the Red Sox's 2-0 lead, so no goat horns for Tito.

Game 2 was a different story. With Josh Beckett giving up three homers in the first four innings -- continuing a trend from his division deries start -- Francona sent him back to the mound in the fifth, and a 6-5 lead soon became a 6-8 trail. Francona didn't want to burn through his bullpen, perhaps … But isn't that why Paul Byrd's on the roster? If you're not going to use him in long relief, when are you going to use him? And then Francona compounded his first mistake; when he finally did go to his relievers, he burned through them too quickly. Javier Lopez threw one pitch and was pulled; later, Manny Delcarmen, Justin Masterson and Jonathan Papelbon all threw 20 or fewer pitches. That's why, in the decisive 11th inning, 42-year-old, 5.66-ERA Mike Timlin was on the mound. Instead of someone Francona could actually trust.

Everyone involved says there's nothing wrong with Beckett. Maybe. But if there is something wrong with him, the Red Sox are in big trouble. Especially if Francona continues to ignore the smart little man that must be inside him.

• Chris Jaffe conducts a postmortem on the Cubs, and it's not pretty. As Jaffe writes, "The Cubs have dropped 13 of their last 14 postseason series, but they've never looked as utterly inept as the last two."

• You probably missed the story if you don't get your baseball news in Spanish, but as ShysterBall writes, Evan Longoria got himself into a little trouble last week. I'll let you read more about that if you like. But I'm willing to cut Longoria plenty of slack, because I say dumb things sometimes, too. Here's what really piqued by interest, from Shyster:

BONUS! It's been 16 years since I've used Spanish to do anything other than order a third margarita (I'm sober enough for the first two to know not to act like a moron), so I needed a little help reading the linked ESPNDeportes article. While I eventually just asked a Spanish speaker I know to give me the gist, I first took a total shot in the dark and ran it through Babelfish, which is always fun. In this case I got the usual gibberish, but there was one stone cold awesome bit of literal translation that is going to stick with me forever:
"It would try to offend to somebody by its nationality, race or color, never" added the antesalista of the Rays of Tampa Bay, while it was prepared to face the Red Averages of Boston in Tropicana Field.
The Red Averages! Now that's something I hope to see on a sign in New Yankee Stadium next season.

I think that one's going to have some legs.

• Scott Proctor's having elbow surgery, which of course shoots his chance of pitching for the Dodgers in the World Series. It was never going to happen anyway. As Joe Torre notes, "We know for sure, if we're in the World Series, both Takashi Saito and Ramon Troncoso would be ahead of him [if a pitching change to the roster was made]."

A lot of people have been predicting surgery for Proctor since 2006, when he threw 102 innings in relief for the Torre-managed Yankees. Still, he was fairly effective that season, and again in 2007, when he pitched for both the Yankees and the Dodgers. The funny thing was, Torre's detractors thought getting traded to the Dodgers was a blessing for Proctor … until the Dodgers hired Torre last winter.

I'm sure Torre's detractors have their reasons, but from this distance they're not easy to see. Just glancing at Proctor's game logs over the years, I find just one red flag: In April 2006, Proctor threw 54, 48 and 42 pitches over three straight appearances in seven days. That's abnormal, no question. But there was no apparent drop in performance afterward. His ERA began to rise a month or so later, but eventually went back down.

Anyway, good luck to Proctor. Maybe when he comes back he'll have solved his home-run problem. Meanwhile, Troncoso, who I don't think I've ever seen (or if I have, I wasn't playing attention), has given up only two homers in 38 innings with the Dodgers, and 10 in 284 innings as a professional. Oh, and while we're on this subject, when you get a minute take a look at the Dodgers' top seven relievers this season. In a word: awesome.

Some random thoughts jotted while watching the Phillies take a commanding lead in the series they weren't supposed to win:

• Sandy Koufax was sitting behind the Dodgers' dugout, which elicited this comment from Tim McCarver in the second inning: "Best curveball I've ever seen: Sandy Koufax. Everybody talks about his velocity, but it was his curve that stood out. If Sandy was getting his curveball over in the first inning, the game was over."

I once co-wrote a book about pitchers, and can heartily second McCarver's opinion. Contemporary National League umpire Jocko Conlan described Koufax's overhand curveball as "the greatest curve around … That was the reason for all his victories." And Conlan's colleague Tom Gorman said Koufax "had the best curveball, for a left-hander, that I ever saw."

My co-author and I rated the greatest curveballs in professional baseball history, and our top three were Koufax, Three Finger Brown and Bert Blyleven.

• McCarver in the fourth inning: "Back in the early '90s, Jeff Kent came to the New York Mets, and I never had any idea that Jeff Kent would be the player that he has turned out to be. I have never, in my mind, been as wrong about a young player as I was about Jeff Kent. And I had some company."

That's true, too. Kent was a 20th-round draft pick, out of Cal-Berkeley (where I'm guessing the hippies drove him a little nuts). He did advance quickly through the minors, skipped Triple-A and debuted in the majors shortly after his 24th birthday. In his first season -- during which the Blue Jays traded him to the Mets -- he batted .239/.312/.430.

There was no reason to think, at that time, that Kent would become a big star. His rookie season alone should serve as a cautionary tale for analysts. But it goes well beyond that. After that first season, Kent did establish himself as a good major league player. But he didn't establish himself as a great major leaguer until 1997, when he was 29. That was the first season in which he hit more than 21 home runs or drove in more than 80 runs. Before then, there simply wasn't any reason to think he'd eventually destroy the record for home runs by a second baseman and wind up in the Hall of Fame.

• In Thursday night's in-game chat, I rashly suggested that Pat Burrell is Adam Dunn without the walks.

Well, as a reader quickly pointed out: No.

In recent seasons, Burrell has not only been drawing more walks than he used to, he's also been striking out less often. Which is a great trick if you can pull it off. Burrell has spent eight full seasons in the majors. From 2001 through 2004, he averaged 77 walks and 147 strikeouts per season. In the four seasons since, he's averaged 103 walks and 137 strikeouts.

Meanwhile, Dunn has averaged 112 walks and 173 strikeouts over these past four seasons. So while Dunn has walked more often, the difference is negligible. Relatively speaking, it's more accurate to say that Burrell is Dunn without the strikeouts. And without the home runs. Dunn hits 40 home runs per season. Literally. He's now hit exactly 40 homers in four straight seasons. Meanwhile, Burrell hits 30 home runs per season (or to be precise, 31).

• Question: At which point in this series will Ryan Howard begin to look for the breaking ball and adjust to the fastball?

No, it's probably not that simple. If simply throwing him curveball after curveball were all it took to muffle Howard's big bat, he wouldn't see a fastball all season long. And if looking for the curveball on every pitch were all it took for Howard to counter the Dodgers' tactics, he would have done it already. Still, it's strange to see him so befuddled in two straight games, when (a) he must know what's coming, and (b) these have been right-handers who have been making him look silly. I'm not sure Howard should even start in Game 4, when lefty curveballer Clayton Kershaw starts for the Dodgers.*

* If he starts. That seemed to be the plan, but after his five-out stint in Game 2, the Dodgers' Game 4 starter again seems to be open for discussion. Oh, and Kershaw did face Howard tonight in the eighth inning. He threw him two pitches, both of them fastballs.

• During the game, much was made of Brett Myers picking up three hits.

Much should have been made. In 225 career games, he'd never collected three hits in one game. He'd collected two hits only once … and that was more than five years ago. On Sept. 11, 1993, Myers singled against Greg Maddux -- who soon afterward was knocked out of one of the worst games of his career -- and doubled against Trey Hodges. Since then he's started 132 games, and never finished a game with more than one hit. And tonight, in the biggest game of his career, he gets three of them.

• Also from the Dept. of Fun with Predictions ... Chad Billingsley's ERA since April 24 was 2.75. In 28 starts over that span, he allowed more than five runs just twice: six runs on July 8, seven on Sept. 17. In fact, Billingsley had never given up eight runs in a game, not even as a raw rookie.

Until tonight.

I'm not going to second-guess Joe Torre, because whatever he did with his starting pitchers all season long, it worked. But I will humbly note that nobody came out of the dugout to at least break the rhythm when Billingsley was falling apart in the fourth inning. And I will also note -- because a number of observers have pointed it out -- that nobody came out of the dugout last night after Derek Lowe gave up the home run to Utley … which was followed, a few moments later, by Burrell's home run.

• I hadn't seen Brad Lidge pitch much this season until the past couple of weeks, and was surprised to see him throwing a pitch that looked a lot like a splitter, or perhaps even a tight curveball. I remembered him, in his famous days with the Astros, throwing a big, sweeping slider that broke down and away from the right-handed hitters. Well, his out pitch is still a slider, but it's a sort of slider that you'll rarely see. For details on Lidge's current repertoire, here's a great piece from July by the Philadelphia Inquirer's Jim Salisbury.

We know that when you knock down the old New York ballparks, you're knocking down two big chunks of history. Here's something you probably haven't considered, though: There are human remains all over the place. James Barron in the Times:

When the two stadiums are being razed in the coming months, demolition crews will be working where Reggie and Mookie once played. But the ashes, apparently, will stay where they were scattered. And that means that relatives who believed they were giving their loved ones a resting place have had to accept that in New York, the quintessential tear-down-and-build-again city, nothing is forever.

--snip--

Perhaps it is a measure of sports fans' attachment to the places their teams fight it out, season after season over a lifetime, that they think about scattering ashes in stadiums  Lincoln Center, for example, says that no music lovers have asked to have their relatives' remains left there. Some relatives even thought of getting dirt from the stadiums before they are torn down.

Tom Bartolini of Avon, N.Y., who scattered his wife's ashes behind home plate and along the third-base line at Yankee Stadium in 2000, asked friends to try. He said that two who attended the last game played there last month had grabbed some, but that he does not know whether it was from the same parts of the stadium.

Lisa Hasson did not rely on friends. She had put her father's ashes on the pitcher's mound at Shea 12 years ago, and went to the stadium last week in search of a keepsake -- a clump of dirt.

Security guards turned her away, and a team spokesman said she could not be allowed on the field. But a carpenter hired for work at Shea heard about her wish, pocketed some dirt from the field and later gave it to her.

I mean, for the moment let's leave aside the likelihoods that a) once you're dead, you're dead, or once you're dead, you're not really dead but you've got far more important and interesting things to worry about than where your corporeal remains have ended up. Leave those aside, and let us turn to a less metaphysical question.

I just can't help wondering (and please pardon me for an indelicate question): Are ashes scattered 12 years ago really still hanging around on the pitcher's mound, soaking up all that Shea Stadium ambience, and transferring their energy to Mike Pelfrey and Aaron Heilman?

When we scatter our loved ones' ashes in some special place, we're not doing it for them; we're doing it for us. It makes us feel better now, and it makes us feel better about later (when we hope that someone might follow our wishes about our remains). But the belief that many years later -- after the winds and the rains and the resoddings -- there's still anything physical left … frankly, it's delusional. All that's left is the idea, and you can't scoop an idea into a Tupperware.

Today's Link-O-Rama comes straight from the home office in Peculiar, Missouri:

• How hard is this stuff? Yesterday in this space, we noted that the Phillies rely on home runs, but the Dodgers don't give them up. Exhibit A: Derek Lowe, who gave up only 14 homers in 211 innings this season. He started 34 games. He gave up more than one home run in one of those 34 games. So what happens last night? He gives up two homers. In one inning.

A friend writes:

What I don't understand is that, if a team that has lots of power meets a team that doesn't give up homers, why should we assume that this favors the pitchers instead of the power hitters? This is a matchup of strength against strength, and while it's possible that groundball pitchers will neutralize the Phillies' power, isn't it equally as likely that the Phillies' power hitters will neutralize the groundball tendencies of Lowe et al?

I never meant to suggest that the Dodgers would neutralize the Phillies' power; rather, I expect them to dampen it. Clearly, neither tendency should neutralize the other. Instead, we would expect a middling effect, which in this case would seem to give an edge to the Dodgers because so much of the Phillies' offense is tied to hitting home runs. This afternoon they face Chad Billingsley, who (like Lowe) gave up only 14 home runs all season. We'll see how middling this one turns out.

• Of course, last night's outcome might have been completely different if Manny Ramirez's first-inning blast had been two feet higher or four feet to the right, in which case it would have been a home run instead of a double, and the Dodgers would have scored two runs in the first rather than just one. Of course, they might also have scored two runs in the first inning if Ramirez had hustled out of the box instead of pausing to admire his presumed round-tripper. Considering they lost by one run, one might reasonably argue that Manny being Manny cost them the Dodgers the game. Or at least cost them a shot at extra innings. Hey, nobody's perfect, and that ball he hit is probably a home run anywhere else in the world. Still, maybe this isn't the best time to point out Joe Sheehan's facts about Manny Ramirez.

• The Rays have dropped Eric Hinske from their ALCS roster, and I can't understand it. They say they don't have room for Hinske because they need 11 pitchers, and so have added Edwin Jackson for long relief. Fine. But really it comes down to Hinske, who hit 20 homers this season, or rookie Fernando Perez, who is really fast but really can't hit. The Rays generally seem to know what they're doing. But if Jason Bartlett bats against a right-handed pitcher with a game on the line, somebody's done something wrong.

• On the other hand, we certainly should not underestimate the Rays' collective intellect. After all, Fernando Perez is a highly literate Ivy Leaguer and Joe Maddon can reasonably argue that 9 = 8.

• And for the last word on these amazing Rays (today at least), let us turn to Cardboard Gods, where Josh Wilker proves he can entertain and educate.

• This year's must be the strangest discussion of National League MVP candidates, ever. By some accounts, the two best candidates are two guys who spent less than half the season in the National League. Seriously? Seriously. Case in point: Tim Montemayor argues that the MVP is Manny Ramirez, by a nose over CC Sabathia. Why Ramirez? "Simply put, no Manny, no playoffs for the Dodgers."

This is a popular argument, and has only one serious drawback: It's meaningless. The Dodgers finished with a two-game lead, so it's true: They probably wouldn't be in the playoffs without Manny. They also wouldn't be in the playoffs without Russell Martin, Andre Ethier, Derek Lowe or Chad Billingsley, all of whom were Dodgers for six months rather than two. And what about the Phillies, who finished three games ahead of the Mets? Would they be in the playoffs without Chase Utley? Without Cole Hamels? Without Brad Lidge? They would not. And again, all three of those players were actually in the National League for six months. Hey, here's a nutty idea: Why not vote for the player who was responsible for winning the most games in the league, all season?

(H/T: BTF's Newsstand)

• In the wake of Bill Murray's appearance Thursday night on SNL's Weekend Update special (sorry, no link yet), I was reminded of John Oliver's Daily Show bit, earlier this week, about stupid people … especially Cubs fans.

A juicy rumor, via Was Watching:

Frank Russo, on New York Baseball Digest Radio's Yankee Special, mentioned that his connections have shared that the Mets are accepting inquiries for Carlos Beltran. And, further, according to Russo, his sources have also shared that there's a rumor of a possible deal between the Mets and Yankees which would breakdown as follows:
Carlos Beltran from the Mets to the Yankees in exchange for Robinson Cano (with the Yankees taking on most of Cano's contract), either Jose Veras or Brian Bruney, Ian Kennedy, and another prospect from the Yankees system.
Hey, it's just an internet rumor -- so, take it for what's it worth. Nonetheless, if you're a Yankees fan, would you like that deal? It's an interesting one to noodle -- even just for fun.

OK, just for fun … There's one simple reason why the Mets won't (or rather, shouldn't) make a deal like this: If you trade a great player and don't get a great player back, you lose the deal.

Carlos Beltran is a great player. Year in and year out, he's one of the best players in the National League.

Jose Veras (or Brian Bruney) is not a great player. Ian Kennedy is not a great player, nor likely to become great. "Another prospect" might be decent someday, but also is not likely to be great.

Which leaves Robinson Cano, who's not as bad as you think.

You probably know that Cano was a huge disappointment this season. But that's almost completely because of the season's first five weeks. From May 4 through the end of the season, Cano batted .300/.327/.452 … right in line with his .303/.335/.468 career numbers. Cano turns 26 in a couple of weeks, and we expect him to improve some as hitter over the next two or three years. His defensive numbers have been all over the map, but I think it's safe to assume he'll never be a great fielder.

Beltran is six years older than Cano. Two or three years from now, Cano might actually be better than Beltran. But if you're the Mets, having just come off two terribly crushing seasons, are you going to wait two or three years for a trade to pay off?

In my last post, I picked the Phillies to beat the Dodgers.

Then I read about the Diamond Mind simulation, in which the series was played 2,000 times and the Dodgers won 62 percent of them. Then I read Jay Jaffe's in-depth (5,408 words!) analysis of the series and learned some things I didn't already know.

For one thing, the Phillies depend on home runs for their offensive punch. Actually, I knew that already. What I didn't know is that the Dodgers are exceptionally skilled at preventing home runs, giving up only 123 all season, fewest in the majors. And it's across the board. All three of their top starting pitchers gave up only 13 or 14 homers this year. The Phillies won't find a soft underbelly until Game 4, when they face Greg Maddux or Clayton Kershaw; Maddux gave up 21 homers in 194 innings this season, Kershaw 11 in 108.

Actually, that's not really so soft. Just less hard. If there's one pitching staff the Phillies don't want to face, it's probably this one.

Meanwhile, the Phillies' top two starters -- Cole Hamels and Jamie Moyer -- are lefties. Who do the Dodgers want to face?

Lefties. Jaffe:

Given that the Dodgers will face two lefties in the first three games in Hamels and Jamie Moyer, it's worth noting that they were much stronger against southpaws (.275/.350/.419, finishing in a virtual tie for second in the league in OBP) than righties (.260/.326/.390). Neither Loney (.249/.303/.361) nor Ethier (.243/.325/.368) fared well against lefties, though both showed much wider splits this year than over the course of their careers. Such indicators might prompt Torre to insert Nomar Garciaparra (.339/.424/.643) and/or Pierre (.346/.388/.383) into the lineup if he wants to shake things up, particularly if Hamels dominates the lefty hitters in Game One.

So we've got a Dodger staff that's uniquely equipped to handle the Phillies' lineup, and a Dodger lineup that's well-equipped to handle the Phillies' staff.

The headline on my post was "Dodgers are trendy pick, but Phillies are better." I didn't write that headline, but I do endorse it. The Dodgers are the trendy pick, and the Phillies are the better team. But sometimes being better isn't good enough. There seem to be some pretty good reasons for Jaffe to pick the Dodgers in six, and for Diamond Mind to make the Dodgers overwhelming favorites.

The Good Phight's David S. Cohen offers ten things you might not know about the Phillies. My favorites:

3. The Phillies had the best road record in the NL this year. The Phillies were 7 games over .500 for a 44-37 record on the road. The Cubs, the best team in the NL during the regular season, were second with a 42-38 record. The Phillies' road record was second in the majors only to the Angels, who were an incredible 50-31 on the road. The Dodgers were 9 games under .500 on the road, or 36-45.

5. Since the Manny trade, the Phillies, at 34-21, have had a much better record than the Dodgers, at 30-25. Much is being made in the press about how Manny Ramirez turned the Dodgers' season around. That may be true, but since he played his first game as a Dodger on July 31, the Dodgers went 30-25 for a .545 winning percentage. He apparently had a much bigger effect on the Phillies, who went 34-21 for a .618 winning percentage since the trade.

6. The Phillies finished much stronger than the Dodgers. The same story has been told about the Dodgers' strong finish. But the Phillies were 17-8 in September, the same exact record as the Dodgers for the month. And the Phillies were much stronger in the last 16 games. The Phillies finished 13-3, whereas the Dodgers went only 9-7 to finish the season.

10. By every measure, the Phillies outhit the Dodgers … and it's not even close. The Phillies scored 799 runs, while the Dodgers scored only 700. The Phillies outhomered the Dodgers by 77 home runs -- 214 to 137. The Phillies had a much better team OPS -- .770 compared to .732 …

I'm going to conflate Nos. 3 and 10, and 5 and 6.

Nos. 3 and 6 allow me to make a larger point: The Phillies are not a creation of their home ballpark (which does have a deserved reputation for favoring hitters). As we see, the Phillies did just fine on the road this season. And while their hitting stats were certainly enhanced when playing at home, they hit well everywhere. In road games, the Phillies outscored the Dodgers 387 to 349. Their road OPS was better, .753 to .732. And they destroyed the Dodgers homer-wise (on the road): 105 to 66.

And speaking of home vs. road, in road games the Phillies actually finished with a better ERA than the Dodgers.

The Phillies' hitting was better than the Dodgers', and their pitching was just as good (if not better). So why are so many pundits picking the Dodgers? I guess because they're hot. And because they've got Manny being Manny and Joe Torre being Yoda.

But as Cohen notes in Nos. 5 and 6 above, the Phillies have actually been hotter than the Dodgers. As Cohen also notes (not pictured above), Ryan Howard was even better than Manny Ramirez in September. And about Torre -- maybe he does carry around some sort of October fairy dust. But if so, why hasn't he used it since 2000?

Look, I know the Dodgers are better than their record. They've got Manny Ramirez and Casey Blake and Rafael Furcal now, which makes a difference. But I also know the Phillies are a little bit better, and they've got the home field for this series. Which is why I'm picking them to win.

Today's Link-O-Rama comes straight from the home office in Homerville, Georgia:

• Long and lovely Q&A with Trey Hillman. My favorite part:

canes2299: Hi, Trey, great job managing this season. I've been watching the Division Series, and the announcers have been praising Kansas City for the future. Do you think in five years or less, we could be the next Tampa Bay?

Hillman: Yes, I do. I think our younger players will continue to gain valuable experience from this season and be able to better build their success ratios, leading us toward more wins and, hopefully, that dominoes more and more from year to year in producing more wins and leading into winning a Division Series championship.

I don't mean to pick on Hillman or the Royals, but this has become something of a meme lately: "The Royals are the next Rays!" Well, let's not get (way) ahead of ourselves. This year the Rays had nine regulars -- among their nine main position players and five starting pitchers -- who were younger than 27. The Royals had five … and only three of them -- Zack Greinke and, marginally, Alex Gordon and Kyle Davies -- were actually good. With the exception of first baseman Kila Ka'aihue, they don't have a young hitter within a mile of the majors. And the organization doesn't seem to think much of him.

• Hiroki Kuroda won't pitch for the Dodgers again until Sunday night, but I'm afraid I'll forget about this. So right now, here's everything you need to know about Kuroda.

• From Newsday's Wallace Matthews' take on Manny Ramirez comes this wonderful paragraph:

Obviously, he's a great player to rent, but you wouldn't want to own him. Especially not at this point in his career, pushing 37 years old, looking for A-Rod's money and Jim Thome's job, the one in which you get off your butt only four times a game to hit.

Matthews argues that the Mets shouldn't sign Ramirez. Not for the years and the money it will take. He's right.

• The Padres have filed a grievance against Khalil Greene. They hope to recover nearly $1.5 million, covering the time Greene missed after punching a storage cabinet and breaking his hand. In the abstract, they've got a wonderful case. In the real world, I suspect, they've got very little case at all. These grievances are all about precedent, and players have been abusing themselves for years without taking a financial hit afterward.

• If you believe Joe Posnanski, Jed Lowrie is not only the greatest-ever athlete named Jed, but just maybe the greatest-ever Jed, period. Not bad for a guy about whom, just last winter, Baseball America wrote, "a contender would probably want a better defender at [shortstop]."

• On Tuesday, George Kissell died of injuries suffered in a car accident. He was 88, and had been associated with the St. Louis Cardinals for more than 68 years.

• On a happier note, on Tuesday night Nate Silver -- the inventor of PECOTA and Secret Sauce and so many other nifty baseball items -- was the guest on Colbert Nation, talking about something completely different. Video here!

(Bonus Nate Silver: Interviewed by Dan Rather, a bit more seriously.)

Maybe you've heard already, but the Angels aren't real thrilled with having lost to the Red Sox. Again. Mike DiGiovanna has some of the immediate and sour reaction from Monday night. Money quotes:

"We lost to a team that's not better than us," growled pitcher John Lackey, who gave up two runs and seven hits in seven innings. "We are a better team than they are. The last two days, we shouldn't have given up anything."
It wasn't so much Scioscia's squeeze call and Erick Aybar's missed bunt attempt that irked Lackey after the 100-win Angels, who had the best record in baseball and seemed built for a long October run, lost the series, three games to one.
"That's our style of baseball," Lackey said. "That got us here."
It was being eliminated by Boston for the third time in five years and watching the Red Sox pour out of their dugout to celebrate another walk-off win -- they had one in each of their division series victories over the Angels in 2004, 2007 and 2008.
--snip--
Asked to describe his feelings, Lackey said, "Like I want to throw somebody through a wall."

Sure it's sour grapes. Can you blame the guy? The Angels won eight of their nine games against the Red Sox during the regular season, but they've now lost nine of their past 10 postseason games to the Sox. It's hard to imagine how frustrating that must be unless you're the Angels or one of their fans.

The Angels are not exactly poster boys for sabermetrics … but on the other hand, there was no reason to think they would perform as poorly as they have. This year their run differential was terribly unimpressive, but they did quite well in Baseball Prospectus' postseason secret sauce. Most of the time they've had solid run differentials and plenty of secret sauce.

The Angels have now lost Division Series to the Red Sox in 2004, 2007 and 2008; in 2005 they beat the Yankees in the ALDS but lost to the White Sox in a five-game ALCS. In those four years, they ranked second, first, fourth and fourth in run differential among American League postseason teams. In the same four years they were third, first, second, and second in secret sauce.

As it happens, every time the Angels have faced Boston, the Red Sox entered the postseason with the No. 1 secret sauce in the majors. Which goes part of the way toward explaining why they've done so well.

But only part of the way. The Angels deserve a better fate. Not a better fate than losing. We're talking about three Division Series in which they haven't played particularly well. A measly 10 games, most of which they simply haven't deserved to win. No, when I say the Angels deserve a better fate, I mean that they don't deserve to be regarded as a team that couldn't win. Because they could have. They very easily could have. They simply didn't.

From our old friend Alan Schwarz's piece in today's Times about the Rays:

Gone are the days when the team would drop $10 million on a high school phenom who simply flamed out in the minor leagues (Matt White).
Acquiring one-dimensional lugs like Greg Vaughn and Vinny Castilla -- who both became Devil Rays on perhaps the franchise's darkest day at the 1999 winter meetings -- is a nightmare not soon relived.
Much will be made this week about how the Rays, who still have the A.L.'s lowest payroll at about $44 million, learned to walk upright over the past several years. Fine scouting has led to the development of several homegrown stars (third baseman Evan Longoria, center fielder B.J. Upton and ace James Shields), but most key youngsters have arrived in astute trades (starters Matt Garza and Scott Kazmir, relievers Grant Balfour and J.P. Howell, catcher Dioner Navarro and more). Second baseman Akinori Iwamura was imported from Japan, first baseman Carlos Peña from major league oblivion.

You should read the (whole) article. But I do want to mention two things quickly:

1. While it's true that most of the key youngsters have arrived in astute trades, it's also true that those trades wouldn't have been possible if the organization hadn't drafted and developed players that other teams wanted.

2. Here's a list of the players who the Rays traded: Delmon Young, Brendan Harris, Jason Pridie, Bartolome Fortunato, Victor Zambrano, Seth McClung, Joey Gathright, Toby Hall and Mark Hendrickson.

Has a series of trades within a short time ever looked so astute?

An abbreviated Link-O-Rama today, as I'm still recovering from last night's tension-fest …

• Speaking of which, after Erick Aybar pushed Jacoby Ellsbury off second base, Chip Caray said, "So, no Kent Hrbek play at second base with Aybar and Ellsbury. He overslides the bag; he had it stolen easily."

All due respect, I can't fathom what Caray meant by that. It was almost exactly the Kent Hrbek play, except it was at second base instead of first base, and instead of Hrbek pulling Ron Gant off the base, Aybar pushed off Ellsbury. If you watch the replay closely, you'll see that Ellsbury, while he did overslide, might well have maintained his balance on second base -- after all, we're talking about a world-class athlete here -- if Aybar hadn't given him a few helpful pounds of pressure. I can't locate the specific rule involved and I know Angels fans are going to scream at me about this, but I do believe that if the umpire had perfect knowledge of what happened at second base, Ellsbury would have been safe.

• As Halos Heaven points out, if today's game turns into a battle of the bullpens, the Red Sox have the edge.

• Dugout Central's Dugout Scout thinks Josh Beckett is hurting.

• I hope you'll pardon me for not buying into the CC Sabathia might sign with the Brewers stories. Sure, he says it's not all about the money. I'm sure he believes that, in his heart. But in the end most of them -- most of us -- wind up going where the money is. And it doesn't make any sense for the Brewers to spend $25 million per season on one player.

• Salon's King Kaufman rationally explains why the Cubs lost.

• Speaking of the Cubs losing, Phil Rogers doesn't know what the Cubs will (or can) do with Kosuke Fukudome, but he says the Cubs shouldn't rush to any decisions. Of course he's right.

• Well, they might finally be making that Bull Durham sequel. Supposedly. This item doesn't make a lot of sense:

A spy tells us Kevin Costner recently met with director Ron Shelton at Trader Vic's in LA to discuss reprising the role of carousing catcher Crash Davis from the 1988 baseball flick. Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon are also expected to return as pitcher Nuke LaLoosh and baseball groupie Annie Savoy, who are now married and owners of a Major League team that Costner manages.

Wait a minute … Nuke and Annie got married? I know the age difference hasn't bothered them in real life … but in the movies they're even further apart, at least 15 years, maybe 20. Anyway, everything about this seems wrong. Annie's too much older than Nuke (who probably still hasn't learned to actually pitch). The biggest problem, though? Bull Durham was a happy coincidence: right people, right subject, right time. But Ron Shelton hasn't made a good movie in a long time, and it'll be a major upset if he makes another.

I'm not going to quote myself on the Cubs' acquisition of Jim Edmonds; suffice to say I wasn't a big fan of the move.

I was wrong about Edmonds, obviously. Nothing could make me happier. The game (and this job) are nothing without surprises, and the bigger the better. Can he do it again, though? As Gordon Wittenmyer writes, Edmonds might retire. Or he might not:

The thought of taking another shot with the Cubs definitely seems intriguing to him. And needing just 18 home runs to reach 400 has to be tempting.
"It's funny, because my [11-year-old] daughter said, 'Daddy, I heard on TV that if you did something-something you'd be one of only five players to ever do it,'" he said. "Coming out of her mouth, I said, 'Wow.' I think she's talking about the 400 home runs and something.
"We'll just see how it is. Milestones, I'm not really thinking about it right now. I'm just trying to figure out what I want to do, what's best for my family."

Anybody know which club of four players Edmonds might join? Because I sure can't figure it out. Due to the somewhat odd shape of Edmonds' career -- more on that in a moment -- he isn't approaching any historically significant milestones. I mean, there was a time when 400 home runs was big news, but that time passed some time ago; 500 is the new 400.

There's this, though: Only four outfielders in major league history have hit 400 home runs and 400 doubles. Edmonds already has 414 doubles. However, he would almost certainly become the sixth player with that combination, because Vladimir Guerrero has 404 doubles and 392 homers (10 more than Edmonds). Still, one of six is fairly impressive.

More impressive? Edmonds would be one of only two center fielders, joining Ken Griffey Jr.

Therein lies a big problem with this sort of "analysis," though. Because while we've just put Edmonds in an exclusive club with Griffey, a future Hall of Famer, the truth is that fundamentally their numbers have nothing in common. Griffey has 129 more home runs than Edmonds and 89 more doubles. If you wanted to make a good list of players similar to Edmonds, Griffey would not show up anywhere near the top.

Nevertheless, when Edmonds does retire, you're going to find some smart people who believe that he belongs in the Hall of Fame. Which isn't crazy. Maybe he's not Junior Griffey, but a Gold Glove winner (eight times!) with 400 homers and 400 doubles … that's a pretty valuable player.

Specifically, Edmonds really has been more valuable than a fair number of players who are in the Hall of Fame (or will be). But Hall of Fame voters usually aren't kind to players like Edmonds, who hasn't even cleared 2,000 hits yet, thanks to a career that started somewhat late and petered out somewhat early. Superficially, Edmonds has been no better than guys like Fred Lynn and Reggie Smith.

(Tip of the cap: BTF's Newsstand)

The Brewers are dead. The Cubs are dead. The Angels, if they lose Friday night, are dead.

I know, I know … They're not dead dead. This is sports, and of course anything can happen.

But all those teams (including the Angels, potentially) are nearly dead. The Brewers aren't as good as the Phillies. The Cubs have to win consecutive games in Los Angeles. The Angels aren't as good as the Red Sox. Even leaving all that "analysis" aside, the history is stark: Of the 54 teams that have lost the first two games of a best-of-five postseason series, only seven have come back and won (and nobody's done it since 2003).

But I don't believe the White Sox are dead. Not quite yet.

Are the Rays fundamentally better than the White Sox? Yeah, they probably are. The Rays outscored their opponents this season by 103 runs; the White Sox outscored theirs by 82 runs. Although their respective hitting and pitching/defense stats are roughly equivalent, the Rays certainly played in the tougher division.

You have to like the Rays in a best-of-five series, straight up. So you have to really like them now, when they need to win just one of three. But the White Sox have a shot because they're heading home, where they have thrived. Tampa Bay's 57-24 record at home was the best in the American League; Chicago's 54-28 was third-best. The White Sox finished second in the American League in home scoring, and their 143 home runs at home were easily the most in the majors.

In Game 3, the White Sox will turn to John Danks, their best pitcher. If they win that one, Ozzie Guillen will have a tough decision in Game 4: Start Javier Vazquez again, or turn instead to Gavin Floyd?

Whatever he decides, the White Sox will need a bit of luck to win both games in Chicago. But they have a puncher's chance. And if they can extend the affair to a fifth game, anything can happen.

Scott Soshnick's piece about revenue sharing begins with a few quotes from Brewers owner Mark Attanasio, but what caught my interest was this section about the Yankees:

The Yankees are moving into a new stadium next season that will enable the club to reap even more revenue from an increased number of luxury suites.

The Yankees are among the teams that'll be seeking pitching help during the offseason. General Manager Brian Cashman wouldn't say whether Sabathia tops his wish list.

--snip--

"Things are different in our industry from 10-15 years ago, when the Yankees could just show up and outspend everybody," he said. "Everybody has a ceiling. There's nothing limitless in any business equation."

He wasn't specific.

Of the eight postseason teams, five -- the Red Sox, White Sox, Angels, Dodgers and Cubs -- have payrolls that exceed $100 million.

The Tampa Bay Rays won the American League East with a payroll of about $43 million, second-lowest in baseball and roughly the same amount the Yankees paid Derek Jeter and Alex Rodriguez.

Cashman said the success of the Brewers and Rays is proof that the existing revenue-sharing agreement works.

"The Yankees have been very charitable," he said.

I admire various things about Cashman, but that last quote is distinctly nonadmirable.

Cashman must be familiar with the definition of charity. Charity is an act of generosity, freely made. The Yankees do share a significant amount of their revenue every year, but they don't do it because they're generous. They do it because they've been forced to. If the Yankees could abolish revenue sharing (and the luxury tax) tomorrow, they would do it without a second thought.

By the same token, if the Brewers and the Royals could distribute all MLB revenues equally, they would do that. Granted, they do have truth, justice and all that stuff on their side. Realistically, though, they're just looking out for themselves. As are the Yankees.

But suggesting that the Yankees have been charitable for even one moment of the past 35 years, or that they've got charity in their organizational heart, Cashman should be above such notions. It's simply unbecoming, for a smart man who runs the most illustrious franchise in the history of professional sports.

As Bill Shaikin points out, tonight's matchup between Daisuke Matsuzaka and the Angels of Anaheim is perhaps the consummate battle of opposites. Money quotes:

This could be the rare matchup that drives the purists and the stat-heads nuts. Live from Anaheim: The team most likely to swing at a bad pitch, against the pitcher most likely to throw one.

The Angels are the team. Daisuke Matsuzaka is the pitcher. Patience will be a virtue at Angel Stadium tonight, but only in the visiting dugout.

If Matsuzaka had to pitch against his teammates, he would wilt in the third or fourth inning. The Boston Red Sox would take a ball, take a strike, take a ball, take a strike, take him out early.

He will excuse himself in the middle innings, if you let him. He led the American League in walks. No major league starter has ever won at least 18 games and pitched as few innings as he did this season -- 168, or fewer than six innings per start.

--snip--

Yet the Angels plan to play to their strength, not prey on the weakness of the opponent. Mickey Hatcher, the Angels' batting coach, said he will not hold a hitters' meeting this afternoon to emphasize the take sign.

"You want them to step in the box and be able to do something," Hatcher said. "You don't want them to step in the box and say, 'We're going to take a pitch, and then we're going to swing.' "

We can hear the screams already. If a Little League hitter can take until the pitcher throws a strike, why can't a major league hitter do the same thing?

--snip--

Yes, we can hear this objection too: Why don't the Angels try this approach -- force the other guy to throw strikes -- before condemning it?

They did, Hatcher said, and it was not a rousing success.

Matsuzaka, remember, led the league in walks. Daniel Cabrera of the Baltimore Orioles was second.

So, the last time the Angels faced Cabrera, Hatcher said he did preach patience. In the first four innings, the Angels sent 13 men to the plate.

Ten took the first pitch. Seven took until Cabrera threw a called strike. One walked. One got a hit. None scored.

"It was ridiculous," Hatcher said.

Cabrera worked into the eighth inning, on 102 pitches. He walked two.

They are who they are.

That's true. I don't know that one bad game against Daniel Cabrera constitutes a great deal of evidence, but it's probably too late to teach the Angels to run up pitch counts. This really is who they are.

But is this who they should be? The Angels' attitude seems to be that they score enough runs to win, so why bother trying to improve? Mickey Hatcher's been the Angels' hitting coach since 2000. And as a team the Angels have been made almost exactly in Hatcher's image. Like Hatcher -- a lifetime .280 hitter -- the Angels tend to post high batting averages. Like Hatcher, they rarely walk and don't hit many home runs.

What's it got them? Since (and including) 2002 -- when they won the World Series after reaching the playoffs for the first time since 1986 -- the Angels have averaged 92 wins per season, more than anybody but the Yankees (97) and the Red Sox (94). But they've done it their way.

In those eight seasons, the Red Sox have finished second, first, first, first, sixth, third and second in the American League in runs scored.

The Yankees have finished first, third, second, second, first, first and seventh.

The Angels? Fourth, 11th, seventh, seventh, 11th, fourth and 10th.

The average finish for the Red Sox is second (or 2.3, to be more precise). The average finish for the Yankees is also second (2.4). The average finish for the Angels is eighth; more precisely, it's 7.7, or absolutely dead in the middle of the 14-team American League.

Are runs correlated with walks?

You'd better believe it. In each of the last six seasons, the Red Sox have finished first or second in walks. The Yankees finished eighth this year, after six straight seasons in which they'd finished first, second or third.

And the Angels? Since 2002 they have finished better than ninth; average finish: 10th (10.4). When they won the World Series they were 11th in the league; this year they were 12th.

Year-in and year-out the Angels don't draw walks. Sometimes they score runs (2002 and 2007) and sometimes they don't, and sometimes they're in the middle. Why? Because they rely on batting average, and batting average is highly variable. Adam Dunn draws 115 walks (and hits 40 home runs) every season, while Ichiro hits .372 one season and .303 the next, .351 one season and .310 the next.

So that's the Angels. They'll score as many runs as their batting average -- highly subject to luck -- allows them to score. Sure, they'd have a better chance tonight if they could run up Dice-K's pitch count, get him out of the game in the fifth inning. But that's not this team, and never has been.

• A friend wrote to me last night,

You know, I am not sure enough people have marveled at what happened today. Specifically: the Tampa Bay Rays played a playoff game. On TV. I saw it for myself. Yes, people have written lots about how it happened; who saw it coming, who didn't see it coming. What is missing from all of that is … the Tampa Bay Rays played a playoff game today! I mean, how #$%@ great is that?
I mean, people need to stop and say "Wow" once in a while. So, I will say it.

As we all should, together. It's funny how something can seem so impossible, until it doesn't.

• Here's a Q&A with Evan Longoria. Take-home: He's really, really, really sick of questions about that actress.

• Oh, and while we're on this subject … The Rays were supposed to fold in June, when they had a small lead in their division. They didn't fold. Then they were supposed to fold in August, when they had a modest lead but had lost the services of Longoria, Carl Crawford and Troy Percival. They didn't fold. And now someone's really surprised they're not rolling over for the White Sox?

• Joe Posnanski writes about his small contribution to Baseball-Reference.com's (sublimely useful) Play Index feature (and he also recalls, in a typically delightful Pozterisk, the defining moment of the Tony Muser Era).

• Is Andre Ethier a better hitter because of Manny Ramirez? Eric Seidman (via Will Carroll) and Jon Weisman both take a look at some actual evidence. I link, you decide.

• Josh Wilker's latest edition of Cardboard Gods is a twofer: Jack Kerouac and long-forgotten Red Sox third baseman Terry Hughes; plus 11 reasons the Red Sox shouldn't still be playing. (Bonus Cardboard Gods: Bobby Grich = The Incredible Hulk!)

• To this point, professional sports seem to have been immune to the current recession (or near-recession). But with the recent scary news, Harvey Araton wonders if there's a "sports reckoning" coming soon. It's an interesting question: If the automakers can't make autos, can teams still afford to spend $25 million per season on one player? I don't know, either. But the past doesn't always predict the future.

• How difficult is predicting the outcome of a best-of-five series? The Dodgers may well be a little better than we thought. But if you know someone who predicted that Ryan Dempster would walk seven batters in Game 1 and the Cubs would make four errors in Game 2, please send him my way.

Unofficially, the Milwaukee Brewers' season might have ended Thursday night at 6:53 p.m. ET when Shane Victorino drove one of CC Sabathia's fastballs over the left-field wall for a grand slam.

Remember, entering this series, the conventional wisdom was that the Phillies would win the first game behind Cole Hamels, the Brewers would win the second behind Sabathia and then if the Brewers could somehow scratch out a win in Game 3 or 4, Sabathia would come back in Game 5 and the Brewers might squeak past the obviously superior Phillies.

But now -- and I'm writing this in the bottom of the fourth inning, with much baseball yet to come -- it looks like the Brewers are practically dead. And I wish I'd predicted it would happen so soon.

One year ago, Sabathia entered the Indians' Division Series having thrown 241 innings. He picked up the win in Game 1, but got knocked around a little bit and walked six Yankees in five innings.

It was the first time in 2007 he'd walked more than three batters in one game.

In the American League Championship Series, Sabathia again started Game 1, and this time got knocked out in the fifth inning, having walked five Red Sox. He started Game 5 and pitched better, but still took the loss after failing to record an out in the seventh inning.

This year, Sabathia entered the Phillies' Division Series having thrown 253 innings. What's more, Thursday marked the fourth straight time he's started with only three days of rest.

Should we be surprised that Sabathia laid an egg Thursday?

Sure. I'm surprised and you're surprised and I'm sure he's surprised. We all should be.

We shouldn't be too surprised, though. Sometimes we come to feel a sense of inevitability that just isn't merited. Of course he'll beat the Phillies in Game 2, and of course he'll beat the Phillies again in Game 5, if only his teammates can extend the series that far.

But nothing is inevitable, no pitcher invincible. The party line is that Sabathia can start every four days and win almost every time. But even he must have limits, right? If he could start every four days, why wait until late September to ask him to do that? For that matter, why not ask every big starting pitcher to start every four days?

No one's exactly sure what the limits are. There are limits, though. Even for the big guy.

Another October is here, which means it's time to revisit Baseball Prospectus' "Secret Sauce." This time, I'll let SI.com's John Donovan do the honors:

Still, there are smart ways to pick the teams that will fare best in the playoffs. Nate Silver and the hard-thinkers over at Baseball Prospectus have looked at tons of data and come up with a formula that identifies the three main characteristics of a successful playoff team. They are:

1. Pitchers that strike out batters.

2. A stud closer.

3. A good defense.

You might notice there's no mention of home runs or the ability to squeeze a guy to second with one out against a left-hander. There's not anything in there about crafty managers or experience or a versatile bench, either. Momentum? History? Don't even bother. Speed? Pssh. Clutchness? Please, save it.

The "Secret Sauce," as BP call its concoction, has worked out pretty well over the years by bypassing some of the more common stats and digging deeper. The Sauce not only takes into account a pitching staff's strikeout rates, for example, but it adjusts that number based on league differential and ballpark factors. The defensive stat, through a series of different metrics, estimates how many runs fielders save (or cost) their pitchers as compared to other defenses. The stat measuring closers attempts to determine how many wins a closer has saved compared to a league-average replacement pitcher.

In churning out all the numbers, the Sauce comes up with this truism: In the postseason it's more important to prevent runs, through shut-down pitching and good defense than it is to have an offense that can score a lot of runs.

I might amend that last sentence to suggest it's slightly more important to prevent runs, but that's a minor quibble. When you're looking at good teams playing best-of-five and best-of-seven series, slight edges usually are the only edges you're going to find.

I know it's way too late for this, but I sure wish we could redefine "defense" as the pitching-fielding combination, just as "offense" includes hitting, walking and baserunning. That said, there's hardly a better prescription for good defense than: (1) strikeout pitching and (2) good fielding. Given those two, hitters will have trouble making contact … and when they do make contact, they'll have trouble finding a vacant patch of grass.

Among all major league teams, the Red Sox, the Angels and the Cubs rank first, second and third in Secret Sauce (according to this page; Donovan lists slightly different rankings). Not coincidentally, the Red Sox ranked third in the American League in runs allowed and the Angels fourth; the Cubs were second-best in the National League.

But here's where it gets interesting: The Dodgers gave up fewer runs than anybody but finished 16th in the majors in Secret Sauce, last among the eight postseason teams. Why? Because they were 12th in the majors in (adjusted) strikeouts, their closer was 18th-best and their defense was 13th-best (ditto).

Which isn't to say the Dodgers aren't going to beat the Cubs, because after they won Game 1, you have to like their chances. But winning three games is one thing. Winning eight more and the World Series is quite another.

It's a funny thing. I've spent much of my career railing against the pitching and defense, pitching and defense mantra, but if you substitute strikeouts and fielding, I don't know that I can muster much of an argument. At least in October.

With the demise of The New York Sun, we're left to rely on The Observer for our reality-based New York baseball analysis. Fortunately, we're in Howard Megdal's capable hands, and he knows exactly how to suck-proof the Mets …

Instead, the only area where the free agent market has any particular depth is in relief pitchers. And the Mets need to go out and get the very best options from that class: Francisco Rodriguez, Brian Fuentes and Juan Cruz. Simply signing middle relievers to large deals won't guarantee much of anything. (If you don't believe me, ask Scott Schoeneweis and Guillermo Mota.)
But signing all three -- Rodriguez, Fuentes and Cruz -- would go a long way to tilting the balance in the NL East in the Mets' favor. Conversely, failure to do so could leave the Mets in the exact same position in 2009 -- or worse.
--snip--
These improvements would call for addition payroll in 2009 of approximately $30 million. The Mets could largely pay for this with the exiting 2008 salaries of Moises Alou, at $7.5 million, Orlando Hernandez, $7 million and Pedro Martinez, about $12 million. Assuming the Mets re-sign Oliver Perez at around $13 million per season (up from $6.5 million), and let rookie Jonathon Niese take Pedro Martinez's spot in the rotation, that leaves New York with a payroll increase of around $10 million, factoring in raises from arbitration-eligible players. Depending on Pedro's salary demands, he'd be a good choice as fifth starter, should he perform as he did in 2008, with the chance to be far better.
But between the increased revenue from their new stadium and all the postseason tickets they won't have to refund for a change, that's money well spent.

I tend to downplay the importance of bullpens, if only because your relievers pretty clearly aren't as important as your starters and your hitters. That said, it's hard to win -- especially in October -- with a lousy bullpen.

As things stand now, the Mets have two solid all-purpose guys in Pedro Feliciano and Aaron Heilman and two solid one-out guys in Joe Smith and Schoeneweis. All four of them are talented enough, within their limitations, to pitch for just about anybody. Throw in a dominating closer -- Billy Wagner, for instance -- and you've got the makings of a decent enough bullpen.

In fact, that's essentially the bullpen the Mets had in 2007, when they finished with a 3.99 ERA, slightly better than the league average (4.06). Not great, not even really good. But decent. This year, though? Without Wagner for eight weeks, the Mets' relief ERA was 4.25, slightly worse than league average (again 4.06) … and not quite decent enough.

Wagner will spend most (or all) of next season recovering from elbow surgery, which means the Mets simply must find another dominant reliever, someone who can strike out a batter per inning and post a sub-3.00 ERA. It's possible they have one of those guys in the organization or that Omar Minaya can pluck someone -- someone like Joakim Soria -- from obscurity.

But probably not. If that were one of Minaya's many gifts, we probably would have noticed already. So, yes: Minaya probably is going to have to spend some serious money to significantly improve his bullpen. I'm just not sure he needs Francisco Rodriguez and Brian Fuentes and Juan Cruz. Megdal thinks the Mets can sign all three of those guys without breaking the bank, but that's only if the Mets don't sign a starting pitcher or an outfielder and if they really think Daniel Murphy can learn to play second base. Plus, having all three of those relievers probably is overkill. You don't need to have the best bullpen; you just need a good one. Signing one or two good relievers should accomplish that goal and leave a bit of money to address another pressing need.

It's been an odd week in New York, don't you think? The Yankees finish out of the money for the first time in a long, long time. The Mets blow a late-season lead for the second time in two years. And yet the general manager of each team, immediately after these disappointing finishes, is given a rousing vote of confidence: a new three-year contract for Brian Cashman, a new four-year deal for Omar Minaya.

WasWatching's Steve Lombardi takes a look at Cashman's tenure with the Yankees and zeroes in on a key deficiency …

Here's another way to look at the job Brian Cashman has done -- in terms of building the Yankees pitching (which is the element of the game that separates the men from the boys).
--snip--
From 1998 through 2008, here's a count of how many pitchers were on each Yankees team where they pitched in at least 10 games and had an ERA+ of 90 or less:

Year    #

2005    12

2008    9

2006    8

2004    8

2007    4

2003    4

2000    4

2002    3

2001    3

1998    2

As you can see, from 1998 through 2003, the Yankees only had a few "dud" pitchers on their roster each year. However, in the last five seasons, the Yankees, on average, have had around eight "dud" pitchers on their roster each season. Those Yankees pitching staffs from 1998 through 2003 were manned by the Michael and Watson carry-overs. Since 2004, the Yankees pitching staff has been all-Cashman … and contained many "duds."
When you take this all in … the bad moves, especially when it comes to pitching, and bringing the team from the status of World Series contender down to first-round post-season road-kill and then down to non-contender … I just don't see how you can reward Brian Cashman with another three years of being in charge of the New York Yankees.

Gosh, when you put it that way …

I'm inclined to cut Cashman a bit of slack, maybe because I admire his ability to keep his wits about him through all these pressure-packed years. I'd also be inclined to bring Cashman back in 2009. But a new contract that runs through 2011? I suppose the Yankees can afford to eat a big chunk of that contract, so a three-year deal just means Cashman doesn't have to worry about a paycheck for a while. I know there's a fair amount of luck involved in these things. But it seems to me that if, next year, the Yankees continue to get very little from Phil Hughes, Adam Kennedy, Joba Chamberlain, and Kei Igawa, maybe it's time to find a general manager who's a little luckier with his pitchers.

Is Brad Lidge still as invincible as he looked for most of the season?

From Opening Day through Aug. 3, Lidge pitched in 49 games and posted a 2.25 ERA. In those 49 games, he averaged 4.1 pitches per batter, and threw more than 25 pitches in five outings (all of them just one inning).

From Aug. 4 through the end of the regular season, Lidge pitched in 23 games and posted a 1.27 ERA. So far, so good. But he averaged 4.7 pitches per batter, and topped 25 pitches in five outings (again, all five outings were just one inning).

Perhaps of more concern, three of those high-pitch outings came in Lidge's last six appearances. And that doesn't even include a 24-pitch outing in the Phillies' pennant-clinching game last Saturday, when Lidge escaped a big jam thanks to a nifty double play.

Today? 35 pitches, more than he'd thrown in one game all season long.

I'm not a scout.*

* You don't say?

But the Brad Lidge I saw pitching today wasn't the Brad Lidge I remember. Lidge's bread-and-butter pitch is, and always has been, his sweeping slider. According to Baseball Info Solutions, Lidge threw his slider roughly 55 percent of the time this season, more often than he'd ever thrown it before. I believe he needs his good slider to thrive, and today he didn't seem to have it. It just didn't seem to snap -- and without that great slider, Lidge has to nibble a little bit.

Lidge's recent performance may not mean anything at all. Maybe it's just a little bad luck, or perhaps he's simply regressing to his mean (which is still pretty great). But if I were a Phillies fan I'd be just a little bit worried right now.

The Phillies are in the playoffs because -- among other reasons -- they haven't a lost even a single game they led after eight innings. They don't need to keep that streak going through October … but it sure would help.

Plenty of other stuff to talk about, but today we begin with a few AL Central playoff Wangdoodles …

• I guess this question doesn't come up often because we don't often have regular-season playoffs … But hey, what's with the coin flips? Might there be any good reason that winning the season series gets you the home field in a playoff game? Of course we don't know if it would have made any difference, but the Twins did win 10 of 18 games against the White Sox (before Tuesday night). Seems to me that in a just world, that would have earned them an advantage in their biggest game of the year.

• That said, the better team probably did win. The White Sox were fourth in OPS and sixth in OPS allowed; the Twins were ninth and 10th. Objectively -- and leaving aside luck in its most obvious manifestations -- the White Sox are probably the fourth or fifth best team in the American League, while the Twins were … well, you can figure the rest of the math for yourself (unless you're a Twins fan, in which case I suggest skipping this item altogether).

• I'm afraid a snicker escaped my lips in the third inning when TBS played its in-game interview with Ron Gardenhire.

Ron Darling said, "One thing I've seen so far, your hitters, their at-bats, are great at getting deep in counts, seeing a lot of the pitches from Danks so far."

Gardenhire responded, "Yeah, that's what you have to do. You have to work guys, and we try to do that, see enough pitches, and … if he makes some mistakes as we go along here, we'll get his pitch count up, he'll make some mistakes and we'll bang 'em."

First thing that's odd about this exchange is Darling's question, because in the first three innings the Twins were not particularly selective.

Another thing that's odd about this exchange is Gardenhire's answer. These are the same Twins who finished the season 10th in the American League in walks, and 11th in pitches per plate appearance. This was their lowest showing in the walks rankings since 2002 (when they also finished 10th), but of course when Delmon Young and Carlos Gomez are in the lineup every day you're not going to take many pitches or draw many walks. I don't hold the Twins' impatience against them; they're just not that sort of hitters, as a team. But it's odd to pretend that they are.

• I was slightly amused when Ken Griffey's two-hop throw home from shallow center field was hailed as evidence of Griffey's veteran skills. Look, it was an OK throw. But nobody notices if A.J. Pierzynski doesn't make the tough catch and the deft tag, hanging on to the baseball all the while. Griffey made one play moderately well and Pierzynski made two plays brilliantly. Yet it was Griffey who got all the attention.

OK, on to other things …

• We have our Comeback Players of the Year, and it's pretty hard to argue with Cliff Lee. But Brad Lidge in the National League, really? Lidge has of course been brilliant this year, converting all 41 of his save opportunities. But he wasn't exactly chopped liver last year, striking out 88 batters in 67 innings. If I were Ricky Nolasco, I might ask for a recount. Nolasco last year had a 1-2 record and a 5.48 ERA, and this year he went 15-8, 3.52. Now that's a comeback.

• Joe Posnanski writes about sportswriting and life. Joe's a nice guy, and winds up liking a lot of the people he writes about. Because he's also a good writer, this means he often winds up writing terrible (if honest) things about his friends. I don't know if I could do that. Which is why I'm glad I don't know any of my subjects. In "Almost Famous," Lester Bangs says a writer must be "honest and unmerciful," but that's pretty tough when you wind up liking the people you're writing about. William Miller manages to pull it off in the movie. Somehow Joe does, too (for the most part; he can't help occasional bouts of mercy).

• My friend Steven Goldman is always worth reading, but I'm singling him out today because his piece about Pedro Martinez and Mike Mussina was published in the final edition of the New York Sun, which yesterday ceased publication. In addition to Goldman, the Sun has hosted a number of fine Baseball Prospectus writers, not to mention resident baseball writer Tim Marchman. I don't know where Marchman will land, but I do hope someone else has noticed that he's one of the best in the business. We'll miss him. But probably not for long.