• Joe Blanton to start game 4 for the Phillies:

    I'm not quite sure what the debate here is. Never before in his big league career has Cliff Lee pitched on three days rest; the guy's been borderline unhittable in the post-season; he threw 122 pitches in his game 1 masterpiece and the Phillies have the depth and power to deal with anything that happens with Joe Blanton.

    Blanton pitched very well in last year's World Series against a Rays lineup that was tough in its own right and even hit a home run. If it were a team that couldn't score to mitigate a bad start by Blanton, then fine, consider going with Lee on short rest, but the Phillies are never out of any game with their power and the bandbox that is Citizens Bank Park. Why run the risk of ruining the rest of the series with a panicky decision to start Lee without his full complement of rest? 

    The opposing pitcher shouldn't be a factor either. As great as C.C. Sabathia's been, the Phillies proved last year and in game 1 that they're not all that impressed with him. Sabathia pitched well enough to win in game 1, but Lee outdid him; the Phillies rocked him last year in the NLDS while he was with the Brewers. 

    The safe and smart choice is to start Blanton in game 4 and save Lee for game 5. As for all this silliness that Lee will be "unavailable" for game 7 since he's not starting game 4?

    Please.

    Everyone's available for game 7's and if Lee's needed to pitch a few innings, I guarantee he'll be the first one to volunteer and get out there. The Phillies are making the right move.

• Hideki Matsui should play right field, if....

    The one question I would have regarding Matsui possibly playing the outfield for the first time all year is whether or not he can make the routine plays. No one's asking him to be Nick Markakis out there, but would he be a liability that could cost the club a game? His knees are said to be in rotten shape, but he's a gutty, smart player and with proper positioning, it shouldn't be a problem. Hitters tend to hit Andy Pettitte back up the middle anyway, so how many balls would reasonably head Matsui's way?

    The Yankees have to decide which is more important. Do they want to have the better ability to move of Nick Swisher/Jerry Hairston Jr/Eric Hinske? Or do they want Matsui's clutch bat and worry about the defense later?

    I have no intention of trying to get into Joe Girardi's head on this matter (it's dark, cold and scary in there), but if Matsui proves in the workouts that he can move just well enough and not injure himself playing the outfield, I'd start Matsui.

• Unraveling the mystery of the "sombrero":

    I knew I was right about having heard a different set of rules for the "sombrero/golden sombrero" reference to a four-strikeout night.

    Keith Hernandez is old-school. He grew up with a father who'd played minor league baseball and has an affinity for terms from years past in describing various aspects of the game. In his underrated book, If At First, chronicling the 1985 season of the Mets...*

*Time for Paul to be maudlin: Where was the Wild Card during the 80's? Its absence cost the Mets three World Series wins.

...Hernandez imparts the following on pages 23-24:

(Darryl) Strawberry caps off our lackluster batting by posting the team's first sombrero of the year. That's 0-for-4 with four strikeouts. Five strikeouts is the rare and not coveted golden sombrero. A mere three is the hat trick.

Hitters clearly recall their sombreros. I've had four in the big leagues. The first one off Tom Seaver in 1975, a year I started with the Cards before being sent down. Two of the strikeouts were with the bases loaded. I almost cried.

(John) Candelaria did it to me in 1979, when I was hot and winning the batting championship. I was overmatched that day.

The two I can still taste were late in the following season. After a collision with Bill Buckner at first base, a mild concussion kept me out of three games. I tried to come back too soon and my first game was a sombrero against Bert Blyleven. I went 3 for 24 for the week.

A few weeks later we faced Bill Gullickson in Montreal. It was 28 degrees in late September and the wind chill factor was 5. I was trailing the same Buckner by two points for the batting title, and I wanted my second crown in a row. The Cards were out of the race, so I had nothing to do but hit.

I was frozen at the plate; four times Gullickson sent me back to the dugout to thaw.

I still get angry recalling that collision. It cost me the title.

    I think I trust Hernandez's recollection and use of such terms than the new age people who grasped something and ran with it inaccurately.

• Viewer Mail 10.31.2009 (It's Halloween. BOO!):

Jane Heller at Confessions of a She-Fan writes RE Charlie Manuel:

I agree about Manuel not leaving Pedro in too long. I would have left him in too. He was pitching great.

    I have no problem with second-guessing (I do it all the time), but when it's stupid second-guessing, it's post-game nitpicking. And if he'd yanked Pedro and brought in one of the bipolar arsonists he's got in his bullpen and they'd given up four runs, then what? The conversation would consist of: "Why'd Manuel take Pedro out?" It's ridiculous. 

Jeff at Red State Blue State writes:

Will Pavano EVER live that legacy (or general lack thereof) down? *signs point to NO*

    It's one thing to come to New York and not be able to handle everything inherent with the city, the pressure and the media scrutiny; but Carl Pavano came to New York and showed no interest whatsoever in trying----that's what's unforgivable. Once he got his money and he started to get an idea of what it was going to be like for him over the four years, he did everything he could to self-sabotage from questionable injuries and behaviors; to the skirt-chasing; to the lies and losing attitude.

    In fact, I don't think it was New York at all that transformed Pavano into the butt of jokes he's become. Had he signed with the Red Sox, Tigers or Mariners he would've degenerated into the same thing. He got his money and lost his desire. He wouldn't be the first, but he was such a colossal waste of time as a Yankee, that he's never going to be forgotten. And that ain't in a good way either.  

• Yankees 3-Phillies 1:

The good Burnett shows up:

    There's never been a question of A.J. Burnett's stuff. His abilities are among the best in baseball. The questions surrounding him have always been about his durability; his mental approach; and his command. No matter what anyone says about Burnett, he was up-and-down this year. Such has been the hallmark of his entire career.

    Whether it was the continuous injuries; the apparent "click" that went off in his brain whenever the carrot of big money at the end of certain seasons was dangled in front of his face; or his maddening inability to ever put it all together for an extended period and dominate consistently as he's shown the intermittent talent to do. Observers were rightfully paranoid if Burnett would deliver in what amounted to a game the Yankees needed to win to have a chance to win this series. In response to the realists and concerned loyalists, Burnett spun a gem.

    I'm still dubious about the big money the Yankees doled out on Burnett. His injury history and the fact that he's been predominately healthy over the past two seasons makes him a ticking time bomb for something to go haywire over the next year or two with his health; but if his start last night keeps the Yankees in this series and gives them a chance to win when it was starting to appear as if they were in deep trouble against a Phillies team that can match them almost pitch-for-pitch, player-for-player, I'm sure the Yankees will accept whatever happens over the next four years. Burnett's already done more for his money than Carl Pavano did in his four years as a part of the roster (I won't call Pavano a member of the team).

    Last night showed the Burnett's good enough he might justify the big contract because of his wicked, almost unhittable, power fastball and devastating curve. He delivered the goods.

Charlie Manuel did not go too far with Pedro:

    There's endless debate on whether Phillies manager Charlie Manuel pushed Pedro Martinez too far in letting him start the seventh inning. 

    It's crap.

    Pedro was masterful last night not as the Pedro Martinez from his Red Sox days in which he could overpower, intimidate and trick with a superlative combination of fastballs, breaking pitches, changing speeds, control and out-and-out meanness, but as a crafty, wily veteran who can still rise to the big occasion and do his job with little more than his brain. 

    What would've been the justification of yanking him after the sixth inning? His pitch count was reasonable; he'd rolled along until then (the Hideki Matsui homer the previous inning was on a pitch that Matsui went down and nailed----it wasn't a fat pitch); and the bottom of the Yankees lineup was due to hit. Why wouldn't Manuel try to squeeze another inning from a grooving Pedro? 

    It would be another thing if the Phillies bullpen was trustworthy, but they're still walking the fine line of getting the job done or torching the place; Pedro was the best option to get through the seventh and it didn't work. Ripping Manuel for that isn't just second-guessing, it's stupid second-guessing.

The umpiring:

    Part of the reason the mistakes the umpires are making have become so magnified and such a cause célèbre is that people are looking for them now. For every 100 calls an umpire makes, he's going to screw up a couple of them. It's not an easy job and for the most part, they do pretty well at it. 

    As for this talk that MLB has to take control of the training and selecting of umpires, has anyone been watching the way MLB goes about it's business in recent years? What makes you think that MLB itself is going to be any more competent at training the umps than the private schools run by veteran umpires are? Given the ineptitude and cluelessness that's been a hallmark of the Bud Selig-run MLB and how they repeatedly miss opportunities to better the game, the results of an umpiring program would probably make things worse, not better. That's history at work.

Benching Swisher:

    The stat zombies are in lust with Nick Swisher because of his batting eye and power, but he's been horrific this post-season so to me, benching him wasn't an issue. Jerry Hairston Jr's numbers against Pedro were the proffered reason for him being in the lineup, but as I said yesterday, those numbers were accrued while Pedro was at the height of his powers----he's not the same pitcher, so the stats are again taken out of context. If it were me and I made the decision to bench Swisher, I would've stuck Eric Hinkse in right field and hoped he ran into a pitch to take deep.

Girardi's smart moves:

    While there were moments of terror for Yankee fans (why was Alfredo Aceves warming up behind Mariano Rivera in the ninth inning?), manager Joe Girardi had a good game. He rode his starter, Burnett, deep into the game and handed it right off to Rivera in the eighth inning; and the fake bunt from Melky Cabrera, followed by a hit-and-run single was a great move. This led to the removal of Pedro Martinez and an important insurance run. In a shaky post-season, it was a winning night for Girardi.

• Orioles decline option on Melvin Mora:

    Mora was a Bobby Valentine favorite. Valentine insisted that Mora was one of the best defensive outfielders in the game when he arrived with the Mets and had Steve Phillips not felt the need to replace the injured Rey Ordonez with a more defensively-inclined shortstop in Mike Bordick, Mora would've blossomed with the Mets.

    Mora's a very sound fundamental player; is versatile; is a good guy in the clubhouse and would be a perfect addition to the Mets as a roving utility player to get 400 at bats playing a variety of different positions. He had a bad year with the Orioles in 2009, but I think that was more of a byproduct of being concerned about his contract and the way he felt he was being mistreated in Baltimore. Even at age 38, Mora has a great deal to offer a club as veteran presence and an example of how to comport oneself on and off the field.

• The saddest part of the Steve Phillips mess in a baseball sense:

    The broadcasting of the post-season has been about as horrible as the umpiring. Because of that when good broadcasters who add something to the telecasts with their intelligent analysis and breadth of experience are ousted because of personal issues and/or stupidity, it only makes things worse. Steve Phillips was a rising star as a broadcaster because of his talent at the job, and he ruined it all because he couldn't control himself----again. 

• Phillies 6-Yankees 1:

Cliff Lee looked ready for a nap:

    It was a few years ago after he'd had a couple of useful years in the innings and wins department that Mets GM Omar Minaya was avidly pursuing Cliff Lee, then of the Indians.

    I was ambivalent.

    Thinking that Lee was little more than a cog in a machine who would win a double-digit number of games; give up a lot of hits and homers; and wasn't a difference-maker, he wasn't worth the price tag even though he'd had an 18-win season under his belt. In 2007, my assessment appeared to be right as he was horrible; pitching so terribly that he wound up back in the minor leagues, was left off the Indians post-season roster and wasn't traded only because they wouldn't get enough back for him to justify any deal. 

    Needless to say, I was wrong.

    Even after he turned his career around by getting into fantastic shape before the 2008 season and honing his mental approach to win the AL Cy Young Award, there still wasn't an easy understanding of how good this guy is. The world is learning now.

    Lee continued his post-season domination last night by handcuffing the Yankees with a classic performance. The line----9 innings; 6 hits; 1 run; no walks; and 10 strikeouts----doesn't tell the whole story. Lee was in such a groove that he looked like he was ready for a rocking chair. His control was impeccable; his motion flawless; and his demeanor eerily composed. The Yankee hitters looked completely clueless as Lee changed speeds; mixed pitches; and pounded the strike zone, keeping the hitters off balance and mowing down the fearsome Yankee lineup like it was nothing. 

    The thing that makes Lee so tough isn't just the above-mentioned attributes, but that his motion is so clean and easy that he repeats it again and again. It's so simple that one has to wonder why other pitchers don't take a similar approach. 1. Step back; 2. Lift leg; 3. Deliver ball. 

    Pitchers with long, complicated windups have so many more things that can go wrong; Lee doesn't have that issue. And with that simplicity comes the easy repair job when something does get out-of-whack. 

    The Yankees should tip their hats rather than lament the game because they were overmatched last night. Bottom line.

The difference in managers:

    Charlie Manuel does some bizarre things sometimes as manager, but he doesn't adhere to the paranoid book designed to shield himself from criticism that so many other managers (especially the one in the other dugout) do. He does what he does and couldn't care less what anyone says about him.

    How many managers would've hit the panic button and yanked Lee after Derek Jeter singled to lead off the bottom of the ninth----six run lead or not? It would've been ignored that the hit was a flare that could just as easily have landed in Chase Utley's glove; the pitch count would've been the reference point to take the ball from Lee's hand and put the opening game in jeopardy by calling in members of the Phillies shaky bullpen. 

    No doubt the bullpen issues have something to do with Manuel's reluctance to trust them until it's absolutely necessary, but he stayed with his starter; let him thrown 122 pitches; and Lee rewarded him. Would Joe Girardi have done the same thing? No way.

Does Chase Utley aim for the short walls?

    I'd think it was impossible for a hitter to intentionally try and hit the ball into a certain spot----especially against a sublime star in C.C. Sabathia----but I swear Chase Utley looked like he intended to pop the ball into the right field corner because it was the shortest spot to get it out of the park. He did the same thing at cavernous Citi Field earlier this year against the Mets when he went deep by continually poking balls into the right-field corner and out. Is it possible that he has that kind of bat control?

    Utley's short swing reminds me of George Brett's. I'm not advocating this because his power is such an asset, but if he wanted to and started spraying the ball instead of hitting it out of the park, he could make a run at batting .400. That's what a great hitter he is.

• The McCourts divorce court:

    This looks like it'll get far worse before it gets better. 

    Dodgers owner Frank McCourt, having fired his wife Jamie as club CEO as they're divorcing, has accused her of having an affair with her bodyguard. Jamie is protesting her firing and wants her job back----ESPN Story.

    Normally, I wouldn't comment on this stuff, but it's going to affect the team. If the owners are publicly wrestling for control of the team, obviously it's going to permeate the organization. The players are presumably either oblivious to the situation or are shaking their heads at it. Turmoil like this can sabotage the on-field product by osmosis. I've seen it happen before. 

• Astros hire Brad Mills as manager:

    I'm becoming aware that a solid resume has nothing to do with how a guy's going to function as a big league manager----being a babysitter and massaging egos is sometimes more important than strategy----but at the very least, new Astros manager Brad Mills has the qualifications to have a chance to be pretty good.

    He managed in the minors for eleven years, giving him valuable experience; and he worked on the Red Sox staff for Terry Francona for six years. Working on winning teams is another asset for a new manager and Mills has two championship rings as a coach. It's a good start.

• Viewer Mail 10.29.2009:

Jeff at Red State Blue State writes:

You should've seen the front page of the Tribune's Sports Section today dude. Huge ugly picture of Girardi -- hailed as "one of our own" 'cuz he's from Peoria and played for the Cubs. Well, while they touted him as a local hero they also forgot to mention that he wasn't good enough for the Cubs managerial job... or that his job with the Yanks has been suspect at best. I hope the Phillies win as you say... and that Girardi's gaffes are-a-plenty.

    As much as he denies it, Girardi was lurking for the Yankees job. I can't say I blame him. As you so often repeat, Jesus hates the Cubs. What better way to guarantee perceived success as a manager than to go to the club with the highest payroll and a roster full of stars----and he's still doing his best to screw it up. 

    The intervening time between his Manager of the Year season with the Marlins and his time with the Yankees has exposed his flaws. They were evident with the Marlins----strategic screw-ups; scraps with his bosses; battles with the media----but no one much noticed. He'll have the number of wins the Yankees accumulated this year on his record, along with the pennant, but knowledgeable observers know the truth, that he's a disaster waiting to happen at any given moment because of his odd decisions based on whatever pops into his head or on the stat sheet. 

Keys for the Phillies: The bullpen; getting solid starting pitching behind Cliff Lee; score, score, score; wait for Joe Girardi to make a mistake (of two, three or four).

    The entire post-season for the Phillies was going to be determined by how their bullpen performed. If Brad Lidge and company were able to get the big outs when necessary, they were going to advance; if not, they were going to get bounced early. After the year he had, I didn't think Lidge would be able to right himself sufficiently and get the job done----but he has. Because of that, the Phillies find themselves going for a second straight World Series win. Now, Lidge will face his toughest test yet in the nightmare commonly known as the Yankees lineup.

    Lidge is so streaky and so mentally fragile that one great outing can send him onto a similar streak as he enjoyed in the magical year of 2008; or one pitch can send him into a tailspin as with the Albert Pujols homer in the 2005 NLCS. He's been pitching well although he's still dancing through the raindrops with walks and line drives hit right at people. The Yankees are not the Rockies or the Dodgers. If Lidge gets an opportunity to close a game early in the series and comes through, the Phillies are in great shape; if not, they're going to have to piece it together or ride their starters and hope for the best.

    The rest of the Phillies bullpen has been up-and-down as well. Ryan Madson was wobbly in the Rockies series; Scott Eyre and Chad Durbin have proven themselves to be money pitchers; I don't trust J.A. Happ out of the bullpen at all----he's looked petrified so far, which should be motivation for the Phillies to start him rather than use him out of the pen (which they're apparently not doing). 

    I was totally and completely wrong about Pedro Martinez against the Dodgers. Having thought it was a massive mistake to start him, Pedro went out and spun a masterpiece using guile and craftsmanship instead of his formerly fearsome array of power, meanness and control. That said, pitching him at Yankee Stadium against that patient and powerful Yankee lineup could be a recipe for disaster. The Phillies trusted Pedro's intelligence in the NLCS and it paid off. If he can repeat that trick against his longtime sparring partners from his Red Sox days----the Yankees at the new Stadium----it improves the Phillies chances markedly. Pedro lives for this stuff, but he simply might not have the reserves to physically execute what his brain is telling his body to do. 

    Cole Hamels's struggles are being attributed to tipping his pitches. We'll know quickly whether that's the case in game 3. The Yankees have routinely abused Joe Blanton in the times they've faced him to the tune of an ERA over 8 in four career starts. Cliff Lee has been so masterful in the playoffs that he can got toe-to-toe with C.C. Sabathia.

    The Phillies must score; they must take advantage of the Yankees lack of starting rotation depth by pushing the pitch counts up; and they must get into the Yankees bullpen.

    One aspect that cannot be discounted is the Phillies ability to lie in wait for the inevitable Joe Girardi strategic gaffe(s) and capitalize. Charlie Manuel does some strange things as manager, but he has respect in the clubhouse and his style's worked for the past three years. He's pushed the right buttons even when they appeared wrong; the same cannot be said for Girardi.

Keys for the Yankees: Starting pitching behind Sabathia; the bullpen in front of Mariano Rivera; scoring early and often; Girardi.

    Sabathia has been the horse the Yankees were expecting when they aggressively pursued him and lavished that $160 million contract on the big lefty. He's facing an old friend from their Indians days in Cliff Lee and whichever comes out on top in the games they're opposing one another will go a long way in determining who wins this series. Don't discount the importance of Sabathia's bat in the games of Citizens Bank Park----he can really hit, and for power. 

    A.J. Burnett is facing a tough task in the patient and powerful Phillies lineup. They're not going to help him with overaggressive swings; and they don't miss fat pitches. If Burnett is on his game, he can blow any team away; if not...

    Andy Pettitte has gotten by on his playoff experience, his guts, his fierce competitiveness, and his remaining stuff. The veteran has shown himself to be a cash money playoff performer since he was a fresh-faced rookie. Left-handed bats have handled Pettitte better than righties this year, and the Phillies lineup is lefty-heavy. 

    Joba Chamberlain has been hideous out of the bullpen; his fastball has diminished in velocity and the JOBA RUINATION has begotten what he is now----a second-tier reliever who should be behind the ballsy David Robertson on the depth chart. Girardi has been using Damaso Marte in important situations; he got away with it against the Angels and Twins; against the Phillies, I don't know if it's a good idea. Phil Hughes has been misused by Girardi as well and his pitch selection has been wanting. The way the Phillies lineup punishes pitchers, the Yankees bullpen in front of Rivera is imperative.

    The Yankees lineup doesn't give a break to the opposing pitchers and after Lee, the Phillies starters are very hittable. With their patience and power, the Yankees are never out of any game. Hideki Matsui and Derek Jeter have always been clutch and the newly relaxed Alex Rodriguez is a one-man-gang. Mark Teixeira has slumped horribly this post-season with a few big hits sprinkled in here and there and is due to really bust out; Robinson Cano's laziness should make him a candidate for strangulation, but too is a major threat. 

    I shudder to think what kind of strategic shenanigans Girardi is going to pull, especially in the National League games; and I'm sure the Yankees front office and veterans are thinking the same thing. His over/under-managing cost his club two games in the ALCS and could very well have cost them the series had the Angels played their normal game. His lack of experience as a manager and bizarre implementation of out-of-context stats is a major issue against the Phillies. 

What will happen:

    Lee has been so masterful that he and Sabathia are more than likely going to cancel each other out with the games in which they're matched up as the result comes down to who pitches deeper into the game and which club gets a big hit. 

    The second game will come down to a battle of bullpens because I doubt that either Pedro or Burnett is going to last very long. Pedro got away with his vast array of junk against the Dodgers, but he's doing it with a bag of tricks and you can't trick the Yankees more than one time through the lineup; they're not going to swing at his floating offerings as the Dodgers did. Plus, the weather promises to be chilly enough that it could take Pedro a couple of innings to get loose----by then there might be five runs on the board. If I were Manuel, I'd have a very quick hook on Pedro. The advantage for the Phillies in game 2 is that Burnett is just as likely as Pedro to get ravaged. The Phillies are going to massacre Burnett and get him out of the game early in both of his potential starts. 

    There's been so much discussion about Ryan Howard's atrocious splits against lefties that it's an invitation to a gigantic hit (or two) by Howard in the series----and he will bust at least one and probably two games open with big hits against the Yankees lefty relievers. If Girardi brings in Marte to pitch to Chase Utley and Howard? Everybody duck.

    As the series wears on, the battering the Yankees starting pitchers have had to endure due to their lack of depth will come to the forefront as the relentless Phillies lineup puts up crooked numbers. The Phillies pitching behind Lee isn't great, but Hamels has shown himself to rise to occasions in the past. 

    Lidge and the rest of the Phillies bullpen (for the most part) put their horrendous regular season behind them and regained some semblance of form for the playoffs. The Yankees lineup is no picnic, but I feel better about the Phillies set-up crew than I do about the Yankees. Chamberlain and Hughes are in for a rough time.

    The Girardi factor cannot be discounted. Never before in my life have I seen a manager single handedly cost his team not one, but two playoff games have them survive. His horrific bouts of over/undermanaging are going to cost his club at least one game in this series. Manuel isn't a great manager, but he's not going to do something ridiculous and have it explode in his face. 

    The Phillies can match the Yankees power; their bullpen is good and battle-tested enough to hold onto late leads; and the starting pitching is going to be a wash. The shortness of their starting pitching; the rickety bullpen; and their manager will doom the Yankees as the Phillies take their second consecutive World Series.

PREDICTION: PHILLIES IN SIX.

WORLD SERIES MVP: CLIFF LEE

• Kick a guy in the balls after he's out the door----classy:

    I find myself in an extremely odd position when I have to defend people whose baseball knowledge and skills I see as wanting; or those that I don't particularly agree with; or find mean-spirited and agenda-driven just for the sake of irrational self-interest. But here we are again.

    The San Diego Padres introduced Jed Hoyer as their new GM yesterday amid all the usual crap that comes with a new architect of an organization being hired. Hoyer's resume, his experience, his intelligence, his plans----all were discussed during the press conference as is the nature of such things. That wasn't the most interesting part of the storyline detailed for the Padres new GM. What I found simultaneously fascinating and disturbing was the way the former GM, Kevin Towers saw his tenure stealthily slammed as if he was the genesis of all the problems that have befallen the Padres in the past three years. And it's ridiculous. 

    The quote that got my attention from the AP story was the following: 

After firing Towers, Moorad said he wanted a more "strategic approach" from his GM. Towers was known more as a seat-of-the-pants GM who built four NL West winners and had his 1998 club reach the World Series, where it was swept by the Yankees.

    I am no fan of Kevin Towers as a GM. In his time running the Padres, he made some brilliant maneuvers, some horrible decisions and for the most part was an empty suit who can function doing the job even as his effectiveness was hindered by ever-changing circumstances that were no fault of his own. It's hard to judge someone who has to juggle the act of doing his job with ownership mandates and interference.

    How is an executives supposed to have a "strategic approach" when he's forced to oversee repeated financially motivated teardowns? When he has his drafting preferences sabotaged? As he deals with overbearing and meddling bosses who attach Clousseau-like spies to his neck like giant warts? 

    Was it Towers's fault that former owner John Moores demanded the club be dismantled after their pennant-winning year of 1998? That Sandy Alderson was hired and set about trying get rid of Towers, then stuck Paul DePodesta in the middle of the organization as a jack-of-all-trades nuisance? That his longtime cohort, manager Bruce Bochy, was forced out in the interests of a more palatable (meaning cheaper and pliable) replacement in the overmatched Bud Black?

    It's one thing to fire one man to bring in another who's more to the liking of the new owner. Jeff Moorad has every right----even the duty----to do what he feels is in the best interests of his organization and if he thinks Hoyer is the guy to oversee the Padres through their retooling, then fine. But why was it necessary for this implication that Towers "flew by the seat of his pants" to be put out there as if he was functioning that way by design? It seems to me that he "flew by the seat of his pants" because that was the way the Padres forced him to operate.

    No one knows how Hoyer is going to do. Much like the backup quarterback who has the best job in the world while his name is being chanted and the starter is running for his life under siege from all sides, it's not that hard to look smart when no one's focusing on the mistakes. Being an assistant GM and emerging as the "hot" name to rebuild a club lasts only until he does something stupid. The Padres don't have the safety net----money----that Hoyer's former employers, the Red Sox, do. He could be another Theo Epstein or he could be another DePodesta. We won't know until we know.

    The job as GM is so transitory that one break here or there can mean the difference between keeping and losing his job. And this is all the more reason to give Towers a break for what he had to deal with. To denigrate him as someone who didn't have a plan is ignoring reality as some form of self-justification.

    The Padres fired him; he's gone; they've hired someone else. There was no need to kick him in the balls a month after he was ousted for the sake of propping up the new guy.

• The Don Mattingly managerial speculation:

    I really believe that Don Mattingly has the smarts, the cachet and the unassuming personality to be a great manager. The one thing he lacks is experience in the job and if I were the Dodgers as they discuss whom the heir apparent to Joe Torre, I'd strongly suggest that Mattingly manage in winter ball to gain some experience before jumping into the ring. Aside from that, Mattingly inspires such loyalty and reverence and his players would love him so much that they wouldn't let him fail as long as he makes the right moves most of the time and handles the clubhouse.

    I'm sure he can do it, but the job is hard enough as it is and I would not feel comfortable handing the reins to someone who's never done it before at any level no matter how well they interview or the respect they generate.

• Viewer Mail 10.27.2009:

Gabriel writes RE Moneyball:

If Joe says that you are still not answering his question, then I'll assume he does not read your posts, he just looks at "Moneyball hasn't wooooooooooooorked!!!!!" and comments something that disagrees.

    It's hard to get into a discussion about it because I'm not quite sure what kind of answer Joe's looking for and he won't tell me.

Jeff at Red State Blue State writes RE Moneyball; and the Cardinals:

Again, I see the answer you've provided for the question(s); and being that I am in the upper echelon of the intelligence scale, I say you can consider the task done -- a long time ago.

Why you try to plant nightmares for the Cardinals faithful though, I'll never know. It hurts. It hurts bad. I still believe Tony will be back and if for some reason he doesn't return, then Mozeliak will have no choice but to placate Albert's desires. Albert IS the Cardinals. Believe that.

As long as McGwire doesn't start doling out Andro+, I think things will be okay. And with Tony back at the helm, 2010 is already getting off to a good start.

    You don't know the POWER of the Dark Side...

    I'm curious as to whether La Russa got any concessions from upper management about the construction of the team; Dave Duncan; and how much money they're going to spend. With Pujols, they must've realized the gravity of the situation that he wasn't going to tolerate playing for some nondescript minor league manager or brainless coach with marionette strings embedded in his back. It would behoove them to get him signed long term sometime next season while La Russa's still there. 

    With McGwire, he's got to stop with the cringe-inducing attempts to change the subject as he kinda, sorta tries to do a semblance of what he considers the "right" thing by refusing to lie about his PED usage. Not lying is not the same thing as telling the truth. People would forgive and forget if he came out and confessed. It's not like he killed someone.

Jane Heller at Confessions of a She-Fan writes: 

Yay, I finally agree with you about something. Well, two things. Yes, the Angels played very un-Angels-like baseball. And yes, McGwire should come clean at his press conference.

    Reason number 11,492 to worship Jane Heller: she's a gracious winner.

    I sat there and took the beating alone after the Yankees beat the Angels.

    Just me.

    I hold no grudges towards my subordinates and it doesn't cast them in a negative light for letting me, as head of my Family to take the beating----it's part of the job. Isaac was the only member of my crew who was around providing baseline protection, reflecting positively on him.

    The tolerance for abuse is now ended. Everyone had their free shot in the immediate aftermath of the game; now if they come at me, I'm returning fire without mercy.  

    Jane didn't join the chorus; nor did she get arrogant, abusive or cross lines in her giddiness. That's why she's Jane.

• The Yankees win the pennant:

Surviving in spite of their manager:

    Talent and a gaffe-laden opponent carried the Yankees through.

    I don't remember seeing a playoff series in any sport in which a coach or manager made massive tactical errors so hideous that they cost his club not one, but two games and they were still able to win. But that's exactly what happened with the Yankees.

    Manager Joe Girardi's inexperience and shoddy, haphazard attempts at strategy with over-and-undermanaging very nearly blew up in his face so completely that he could've cost his team an entire series when, by all possible metrics, this series should've ended in a four-game sweep for the Yankees.

    The afterglow of the first pennant for the club since 2003 will cloud these sins, but won't erase them. There have to be deep concerns of what he's going to pull when the doesn't have the security of the DH to protect him from other, more complicated decisions during the games played in the National League park.

Was that really the Angels?

    The series was exemplified for the Angels by the bottom of the eighth inning when Howie Kendrick pulled a clank and had a simple bunt play in which all he had to do was be a first baseman for one play and the ball bounced off his glove; then, on another bunt, Scott Kazmir lollypopped a throw over everyone and allowed an insurance run to score.

    From beginning to end, the Angels didn't look right. They made horrendous baserunning maneuvers; didn't advance runners, steal bases or play the game correctly. Their pitchers continually walked Yankee hitters and put runners on base for the middle of their lineup----something you cannot do if you want to beat them. They fell into carefully set traps by Alex Rodriguez and essentially let the Yankees off the hook. If they'd played the game the way they normally do----the way they played to get them to the ALCS in the first place despite all the injuries, obstacles and tragedy they endured----they would've won.

    They were beaten by the relentless Yankees lineup; the Yankees old warhorses (Andy Pettitte, Mariano Rivera and Derek Jeter especially) coming through; and their own poor fundamentals and lack of execution.

•  ESPN fires Steve Phillips;

    In a similar vein to Hollywood and sports celebrities looking for sympathy as some way to curry favor with an all-too-forgiving and gullible public, Steve Phillips is entering an in-patient treatment facility to "address his personal issues".

    What that means is anyone's guess. Walking into the same trap over-and-over again isn't a "personal issue" that can be treated if that is indeed the main problem. Was it arrogance that caused Phillips to destroy his career and family life? Or was it a pure self-destructive tendency? Does he have some genuine issue with something? Or is this the old publicist's trick of subterfuge to make it look like he's going to be a changed man when he gets out of treatment? 

    His personal life is his business; he's a good broadcaster and a knowledgeable baseball man, so he can rehabilitate himself professionally; he'll get another job somewhere in baseball I would think; but who's to say he's not going to turn around and do this again after the mess he's made of a blossoming career resurgence?

    I can laugh at anything, but I don't think this is funny. I don't like seeing people waste their talent and that's exactly what Phillips has done repeatedly. It's a shame. 

• "Cool man, a media circus!"

    The above quote is culled from one Bartholomew J. Simpson.

    Sanity has prevailed with the Cardinals as they've signed manager Tony La Russa to a multi-year contract.*

*I had a bad day with my predictions yesterday as hours after I said that I thought La Russa was going to leave St. Louis, it trickled out that he was staying. Then there was my prediction of ANGELS IN SEVEN that obviously didn't end as I expected. I stood up for my Family as a leader should and took the beating. Everyone has to take a beating sometimes. Life goes on. 

    La Russa's decision to stay in St. Louis has become the secondary story as hitting coach Hal McRae was fired and will be replaced by Mark McGwire.

    Now this will be interesting.

    The one thing I'm curious about is how McGwire is going to answer the questions that he refused to answer in front of congress. Is he going to stay on the "I'm not gonna talk about the past" script? Will he confess to his steroid use? Or will he shy away from the media entirely and say that he's there to talk about his job as batting coach and make the whole situation worse? 

    My advice to McGwire would be to answer any and all questions at the introductory press conference on every subject and be done with it. Admitting his past steroid use will put this to rest because there won't be anywhere else for the media to go. Just say, "I did it," go into details about why he made the same choice that a massive chunk of athletes have made and end the story once and for all.

    The attempts at vacillation through non-answers will only stoke the desire for the truth and if he gives it up voluntarily, he'll be able to get on with his life and do his job effectively.

    I think he has the potential to be a good hitting coach because regardless of the way he's been disgraced, the players still like and respect him and he's helped numerous hitters with their swing and mental approach independently and in spring training. The first press conference will tell the story of how he's going to move forward. Being honest is the first step.

• Indians hire Manny Acta as manager:

    This was one prediction I got right. The day wasn't a total loss.

    Acta is a solid guy and a good manager. He dealt with a situation in Washington where he didn't have much talent, was babysitting a group of juvenile delinquents and a controversial and overbearing GM in Jim Bowden----and did well. Anything after that mess will look like paradise----even Cleveland----and the Indians situation isn't all that bad. There's enough talent to compete and more fairly quickly. Acta's young enough to relate to the players while still maintaining respect and is a very good choice.

    Where this leaves Bobby Valentine is a question.

    There's no job for him in the big leagues now, so he has the choice of staying with ESPN and waiting for a big league job to open, or going back to Japan. I doubt Valentine's going to go back to Japan now. He wants to manage in MLB and there will likely be several opportunities early in 2010 for a manager with Valentine's credentials. 

    That he didn't get the Indians job shouldn't come as a shock. While I'm sure the Indians wanted him for his baseball savvy and interesting personality, the price tag was going to be too high as would the power demands. Indians GM Mark Shapiro doesn't seem the type to want to deal with a load of aggravation and along with all his obvious skills, aggravation just comes along with the Bobby V package.

    The one situation to watch with Valentine is Tampa. There isn't a better spot in baseball for Valentine than the Rays----a young team that needs a strategically oriented manager who has the cachet and fearlessness to lay down the law to a club that is floundering under soft manager Joe Maddon. The Rays have been reluctant to make drastic decisions until backed into a corner, but a bad start next year could spur them to pull the trigger and do what must be done for the greater good.

• The beneficiaries of the game 6 rainout:
  

    The Angels benefit from the rainout of game 6 more than the Yankees do.

    What the postponement does is allow the Angels to use the depth of starting pitching to remain flexible with whom they're going to use in both games 6 and 7. One would assume that in game 6, scheduled starter Joe Saunders (who pitched well in game 2), Jared Weaver and Scott Kazmir will all be available with John Lackey ready to go in game 7 on three days rest. The Angels are in no position to be messing around if Saunders gets off to a rocky start and the ability to use the entire pitching staff will give them an advantage over the Yankees.

    The Yankees have the opportunity to start C.C. Sabathia in game 6 and move Andy Pettitte to game 7; they've said that everything will remain the same and Pettitte is going to start game 6 as scheduled. In truth, there's an argument on both sides and neither is indisputable. The "get it over with" theory suggests that Sabathia----who would be pitching on full rest----should be the choice. He's the ace; he's been brilliant in the playoffs; and he gives the Yankees the best chance to win. Pettitte pitched well in his game 3 start and his veteran cachet makes him a solid choice as well. 

    For the record, if it were me, I'd move Sabathia up and start him in game 6 to try and get the thing over with. The last thing I'd want to do if I were the Yankees would be to let the entire season boil down to one game and run the risk of another hideous gaffe by manager Joe Girardi cost the club a trip to the World Series. Even if they lost game 6 with Sabathia (and I don't think they would), Pettitte's no playoff slouch and the entire staff, even maybe Sabathia for a batter or two, would be available for game 7.

    I'm saying right now that if this series gets to a seventh game and they have to face John Lackey and an Angels team that can smell a trip to the World Series, the Yankees will lose. They must get this over with tonight to win the series.

    What the rainout also does is place a greater spotlight on Girardi. The best thing for a manager under fire over a failed decision is to get right back into the dugout and in the heat of the battle to start the next game. With this extra day off, Girardi will have to answer the questions regarding his bizarre decisions again tomorrow (and he was getting testy before game 6 was called). More time to think leads to more vacillation and the last thing Girardi needs is extra stuff bouncing around in his head. Inadvertently, he might do something to stave off criticism rather than make the right move and this is worse than the insipid errors he's made in the entire post-season up to now.

    There have been calls to bench the slumping Nick Swisher. If Eric Hinske was on the roster, then I'd say yes, bench Swisher in favor of Hinske; but he's not. Why, I don't know. Hinske has had 2 at bats vs Saunders (1 for 2); but he's 4 for 11 career vs Jered Weaver with a homer; and he's pummelled Darren Oliver at a 4 for 9 clip with a homer. Choosing Freddy Guzman over Hinske was a mistake that can't be put on Girardi; it sounds like a front office decision to me and a bad one. 

    They don't have anyone to stick in the lineup who'd provide anything over Swisher. Even as he's slumping, Swisher still works the count and draws walks and is a power threat. Benching him would be an overreaction which, according to the game 6 lineup originally posted on Saturday, they weren't making. Any move with Girardi is subject to change at a moment's notice----and that's not good. 

• Do the Cardinals realize what a potential disaster they'll be without Tony La Russa?

    Tony La Russa is worth at least ten wins a year for his club. Simply by maximizing the players he has on his roster and strategic sleight-of-hand, he takes teams that, on paper, would win 75 games, and coaxes 85. This has been the hallmark of his career. It's not the two World Series wins; the accumulation of records, accolades, Manager of the Year awards and respect----it's been his and pitching coach Dave Duncan's skills to make something out of nothing. If he leaves, the Cardinals are in deep trouble.

    Not only is their club in almost complete flux with free agents Mark De Rosa, Matt Holliday and Joel Piniero; but they have an even bigger problem confronting them: Albert Pujols's contract is up after 2011 and it's hard to imagine him being interested in re-upping long-term under a new manager for a club that's not going to spend the cash that he could get on the open market. 

    Pujols does not want to leave St. Louis and his reluctance to be a money-whore in his dealings with the club has kept his salary at a relatively paltry $16 million per when he easily could've rivaled Alex Rodriguez in a long term deal with the Dodgers, Mets, Yankees, Red Sox or Angels. Now, if La Russa leaves, what motivation would he have to be benevolent? Pujols is subtle in his steering the club through sheer force of greatness; but he does do it quietly as is his right. The give-and-take of a historic player taking short money gives him that leverage to let the team know that if La Russa leaves, he's not even discussing a long-term extension unless he gives the nod to the new manager. How that would go is a giant question.

    The Cardinals embracing of stats in recent years and only spending or being aggressive in pursuing big names when they felt that had little choice but to placate the Hall of Fame manager and first baseman has created a chasm in how to run the club. Owner Bill DeWitt isn't stupid, but he was the one who started the ball rolling with the warring factions in the front office between Jeff Luhnow and Walt Jocketty; the eventual firing of Jocketty and hiring of a conciliatory choice as GM in John Mozeliak who dances between the raindrops of the manager's displeasure while seemingly following orders has been an issue with La Russa for years.

    What if La Russa leaves?

    Are the Cardinals going to find a "name" manager to replace him? Who would the pitching coach be? Would they give Pujols some say-so in who the manager is?

    It would seem that they'd have little choice but to hire a Bobby Valentine or a Jim Fregosi----veteran managers who wouldn't be seen as puppets of the front office and had known experience at handling a clubhouse or game at crunch time. No pitching coach would be able to get the results from the likes of Kyle Lohse as Duncan did; and with Chris Carpenter always a candidate for an extended stay on the disabled list, the starting rotation could be short next year.

    There's also the possibility that the Cardinals would go for a younger, cheaper manager who follows orders; they'll then run the risk of Pujols not wanting to leave the only baseball home he's ever known and wait him out----a dangerous game----as they move forward with cheaper and younger players to their current free agents. No matter who they hire, this current club would be no better than an 83-win team without La Russa/Duncan; and if it's a puppet-manager with little experience? They'll fall further than that.

    The easiest and smartest thing to do is to keep La Russa, but this time it doesn't sound like a negotiating ploy by the manager to extract as much money and power as possible from the club; he truly sounds tired of everything that's gone on over the past few years after Jocketty's firing. At his age, with his accomplishments, does Tony La Russa need to beg the front office for veteran help? Does he need to see his longtime aide-de-camp, Duncan, angered by his recommendations being dismissed and seeing his son banished from the organization? 

    Whether the Cardinals realize it or not, they're in a precarious position with their manager. They need him more than he needs them and it really looks like he might leave this time. The Cardinals aren't going to have a small problem of replacing him; they're going to have a lot of big problems in assuaging their fans, media and most importantly, their first baseman and finding a new manager.

    It could get messy.

    Very messy.

    And I think La Russa's going to leave.

• Viewer Mail 10.25.2009:

Joe writes RE Moneyball:

You say "Moneyball hasn't wooooooooooooorked!!!!!" When you refer to "Moneyball" what do you refer to? It is unclear.

I go back to my earlier questions from a few weeks back. Is a high OBP bad? Is identifying market inefficiencies a bad thing?

I enjoyed the whole spectral/Halloween kinda thing you did there on "woooorked." Quite entertaining.

    Did you read Moneyball, Joe? Did you think it was based in reality? Or was it a twisted, agenda-driven bit of creative non-fiction, skillfully cultivated by a talented writer in such things who found a story he could craft in such a way that it would appear as if a "revolution" was starting when in reality, it was a strategy utilized to mitigate a lack of financial resources and failures of the prior administration?

    Was there or was there not an "us against them" mentality with every scout, coach, manager or opposing front office exec who didn't fit into the template of 20-something Ivy Leaguer or Bill James acolyte treated as if they were, at best antiquated and at worst imbeciles?

    Did you think it was fair the way Art Howe----who had had more success as a manager than Joe Torre ever did before getting to the Yankees----was portrayed as a brain dead moron along for the ride? How Billy Beane and Paul DePodesta's approach in the draft was meant to remake the way every team approached the procurement of players? Has anyone taken a look at the results of the A's "stat/result" oriented approach has fared in the intervening years? I have and they're not any better than most and are in fact worse than many.

    What about the young, fresh-eyed GMs who were handed the keys to franchises in the aftermath of the book? What happened in Los Angeles when DePodesta took over? What happened in Toronto under J.P. Ricciardi? What happened in San Diego under Sandy Alderson? And even in Oakland under Beane? The Red Sox are pointed to as a club who used numbers to formulate the two-time World Series winner they've been under Theo Epstein, but it's conveniently glossed over that they've made some ghastly mistakes and used their financial might to throw money at the problems as their feted for their acumen with numbers.

    I do not believe OBP is bad.

    I do not think clubs shouldn't expose market inefficiencies.

    I believe that those who take the numbers as a literal interpretation of how teams should be constructed are as dogmatic and idiotic as those that ignored numbers as they gained more prominence and validity. 

    I believe teams should use every available aspect of finding players at their disposal. That does not include having some numbers cruncher walking up to veteran baseball man Bruce Bochy and for some inexplicable reason suggesting he bat pitcher Woody Williams second; it doesn't include decrying the brilliance of a true baseball genius like Tony La Russa; it doesn't include disregarding a multiple-MVP talent like Jeff Francoeur because he's painfully impatient. 

    I still don't know what answer you're looking for in your continued question about OBP and refusal to accept what I'm saying. This is the way I feel. Take it or leave it.  

    I'd like to take credit for some Halloween-creativity with the "wooooooooooorked" thing, but I've said that over-and-over again as a way of yelling at people who don't listen rather than as shtick. Thanks for the compliment and I'd like a little give-and-take about the OBP instead of just hearing, "no, you're not answering the question".

    On the bright side, I must provide something in my work that appeals to you and am glad you're still reading even if we agree to disagree.  

• Clinging to a "revolution" choked into lifelessness by reality:

    Rather than going for a GM with the breadth of experience to be both a scout and to utilize stats, Padres owner Jeff Moorad is staying the course set by his predecessor John Moores and is hiring Red Sox assistant GM Jed Hoyer as his new GM. Hoyer is respected and well-liked, but there's no way of knowing whether he'll be able to handle the big job on his own except in retrospect. It's hard to criticize the move beforehand. That said, the stat zombies are using this decision as another specious validation of their faulty, dogmatic and sectarian beliefs.

    Much like the Michigan militia; the "birther" movement; and any other bizarre and misinterpreted attempt to adhere too directly to what amounts to a floating series of tenets or put forth an agenda, the zombies are referring to the Hoyer hiring as another step in the "revolution". 

    Quote from Rob Neyer's Sweet Spot on ESPN yesterday regarding Hoyer:

And so the revolution continues. Hoyer's not an Ivy Leaguer, but he did pitch (and pitch well) at Wesleyan University. Oh, and he's not afraid of on-base average or Ultimate Zone Rating. On the one hand, it's hard to know exactly what Hoyer brings to the table, given that Paul DePodesta and Sandy Alderson -- who still work for the Padres -- are perfectly well-versed in roster-building, contract negotiations, and sabermetric analysis.

    The Michigan Militia portrays itself as a defender of freedom against government encroachment on dissenting citizens; the "birthers" call President Barack Obama's citizenship into question; the stat zombies suggest a revolution between old-school scouting techniques and sabermetrics is still being waged.

    It's not.

    The fall of the house of Moneyball has continued unabated as the years have passed. With the proponents of the system using stats, stats and more stats under fire (Billy Beane); fired outright (J.P. Ricciardi, Paul DePodesta); and altering their team construction for convenience and survival (Theo Epstein), this so-called revolution doesn't exist because Moneyball hasn't wooooooooooooorked!!!!!

    The holdouts remain. Like a lunatic fringe on the outskirts of society and clinging to an ideology despite anecdotal evidence to the contrary and reality kicking them in the teeth at every turn, they refuse to go quietly into the night. It's past the point of someone fervently believing in their point-of-view; it's relegated to the few who have so much personally invested in being "right" that they can't adjust their views for fear of alienating their base. 

    I can't even get into the Alderson and DePodesta references as competent executives anymore. I've repeated it so many times that you can find my statements on such matters using any search engine. That the Padres are staying on that road signifies that the holdouts of this so-called "revolution"----which is being effectively strangled not just by the non-believers such as myself, but by objective reality----aren't going to stop; and those that buy into it are going to learn the lesson the hard way if Hoyer follows the DePodesta blueprint for destroying a club in 20 easy months; and the Alderson recipe for creating a front office full of backbiting, bickering, paranoid spies. 

    Then again, the Padres have been so inept in recent years that they couldn't possibly get much worse regardless of whom they hire as GM and what strategies they implement----or could they? The spiral of Michael Lewis's hackneyed creative non-fiction continues, but there are still teams and individuals who believe it and assert a "revolution" of Ivy League educated "geniuses" still exists and will replace every last old-school baseball guy even if it's never going to happen. 

    My admiration for the audacity is dwindling. If I were capable, I might feel pity for them. But I don't have that ability, so I'll let nature take its course and watch them self destruct with my characteristic indifference.

• Viewer Mail 10.24.2009:

Michael writes RE Joe Girardi:

a delicious skewering! - well it would have been more delicious if I wasn't a yankee fan...

let be known i am not a band wagon girardi critic--i've thought he's been awful for two years.

i'll repeat what i said over at jane's :

a rollercoaster from hell. i have a few thoughts. one could make an argument either to leave AJ in after only 80 pitches or take him out as he had sat there for a half an hour. with a day off and ALL hands on deck i was shocked when he came back out. but so be it. the minute he gave up the hit to Mauer - ooops sorry, Mathis there should have been joba or in my opinion robertson and a lefty ready to come in instantly. no excuse to leave hum in to walk that little creep aybar after having down 0-2. furious that hughes shook off posada who was no doubt calling for another curve... lesson learned? we'll see. but YES--taking alex out for a pinch runner who didnt run was absolutely idiotic --i understand you do it with matsui but then he had alex AND matsui out of the game with no one with pop off the bench. now he's counting on scoring not only the tying run but the winning run. in the end it was all for naught but he's a terrible manger who has a team that usually wins despite his bungles. i sincerely hope that last night proved the AJ/ Molina project has stopped being funded by the Girardi foundation.

    Leaving Burnett in the game wasn't simply a mistaken decision based on pitch counts or that he'd settled in and pitched quite well after that first inning; it was a failure to properly assess the situation. The first inning was so hideous that to get as much as they got from Burnett and to take the lead while he was still on the mound should've been enough. To let him sit in the dugout; to cool off; and evidently lose the groove he'd established and then send him back out for the bottom of the seventh showed a remarkable hard-headedness and lack of judgment on the part of the manager. It would've been one thing if they didn't have the relievers to get the outs, but they did.

    Managers have to think in terms of the worst possible scenario. If this, if that, if then. Was Girardi sitting there and seriously thinking that if the first two Angels batters got on that he'd bring in Damaso Marte? And then go to Hughes after that? If that was the case, why wasn't Hughes warming up alongside Marte? If you remember, Joba Chamberlain was warming up before Hughes ran and started rapidly getting loose. 

    There appeared to be no pre-planning; no preparation----just panic. And the Yankees organization from the front office all the way through to the players must be sitting in anticipation and terror as to what's going to happen if games 6 and/or 7 come down to a Girardi decision because, so far, he's thrown things at the wall and had them bounce back and hit him right in the face. The lack of managerial experience is killing them and it could signal the end in ways that had not been anticipated, but should've.

Jeff at Red State Blue State writes:

At least Michael Myers had the good sense to wear a mask, take bullets without falling down, and, y'know, kill anyone who got in his way. Giardi doesn't have that "killer instinct"... unless you consider "baseball suicide" to count for that.

McCourt, Steve Phillips... hey, isn't it about time Harold Reynolds got himself involved in some type of sex scandal again?! 'Tis the season!

    Michael Myers worked on instinct; Girardi works on...I dunno what. And I'm not sure I'd like to know. It could be catching.

    A week ago, I'd have said that Reynolds wouldn't be that stupid, but I also would've said the same thing about Lumbergh/Phillips. My innate judgments should probably stick to baseball because I have no idea what drives humans (myself included) to self-destruct as they inevitably do. I'm not sure I'd like to know that either.

Peter at Outside the Phillies Looking In writes:

Leaving AJ in was somewhat of a surprise... maybe Girardi should invest in a scary mask then he could use a stand-in for bad decisions... or did he just want to get the win at home for celebratory purposes...

    If the Yankees blow this series, he'll need a mask to get out of town. And if he wants to be part of the celebration, I'm quite sure the Angels will be more than happy to let him join theirs----he'll have been a major part of their accomplishment in winning the pennant!

• Angels 7-Yankees 6; Joe Girardi is scarier than Michael Myers:

    Nothing should petrify the hearts of Yankee fans more than the fact that their manager's overall work has been so horrific that he's almost single-handedly kept the Angels in this series and could put the Yankees' humongous talent, expectations and payroll of 2009 in serious jeopardy of being bounced from the playoffs at home in a series that, by all rights, could've ended in a four-game sweep.

    There are absolutely no excuses for the way Girardi has sabotaged the Yankees in this series. The gaffe on Tuesday was bad enough as he inexplicably pulled David Robertson in favor of Alfredo Aceves and watched haplessly as the Angels won the game immediately thereafter; but last night was worse. Here are the (main) inexcusable Girardi screw-ups:

Letting A.J. Burnett start the seventh inning:

     Considering the rockets the Angels were hitting off of Burnett in the first inning, the Yankees were lucky to get out of the first inning only down four runs. That Burnett was able to right himself to pitch as well as he did the rest of the way should've been enough for them to accept what he provided for six innings in keeping them close enough to stage a comeback and pull him for the deep and rested bullpen. If the job Burnett did in righting his ship wasn't enough to spur a pitching change, then the long inning sitting on the bench as the Yankees rallied alone was a viable reason to pull him.

    Instead Girardi----managing as if he didn't have any trustworthy relievers----left Burnett in and the pitcher promptly allowed the first two runners to reach base before he was pulled. The disarray didn't stop there. Instead of bringing in Joba Chamberlain, Phil Hughes or Phil Coke, he chose Damaso Marte; Marte, who's been so terrible this year that he's only on the roster because he has a (semi) functioning left arm, emerged relatively unscathed; then Girardi brought Hughes into the game (after apparent confusion in the Yankees bullpen had Chamberlain warming up, then Hughes warming up in barely disguised panic). Hughes allowed a walk and two singles to cough up the lead.

    Why wouldn't he start the seventh with Chamberlain? And if he didn't trust Chamberlain because he's struggled this post-season, why not let Hughes start the inning? As well as Hughes has pitched as the set-up man this year, he's still only 23 and not an experienced reliever; why not give him some margin for error by starting the inning instead of dropping him into the middle of a raging fire? Does anyone really believe the Hughes couldn't have gotten through the seventh and eighth and handed the game off to Mariano Rivera had he started the seventh? What's the point of having three devastating arms in the bullpen in Chamberlain, Hughes and Rivera if you're not going  to use them?

    The only thing more useless than an unloaded gun is a loaded gun that's not used when necessary. Girardi had ammunition at his disposal and waited until it was too late to deploy it and saw it misfire right in his face.

Pulling Alex Rodriguez for a pinch runner in the ninth inning:

    Why?

    Let's say hypothetically the Yankees tied the game and it went to 12, 13, 14 innings. Then let's say ARod's spot in the order came up two or three more times against the Angels second tier of relievers and, rather than seeing the blazing hot ARod, they were looking at Jerry Hairston Jr. How would it look if Hairston repeatedly left runners on base because he's, well, because he's not ARod?

    Is Freddy Guzman that much faster than ARod? And even if he is, is he as baseball savvy as ARod? It's not as if ARod is hobbled by his hip or hindered from running at close to full speed in any way, plus there was a great chance that they'd need his bat, the threat of his bat and his glove.

    Girardi has been clueless in this series. His strategies are based on nothing. For a man who was portrayed as younger and more up-to-date than his "manage from the gut" predecessor Joe Torre, willing to accept the "new age" and embrace the numbers that have permeated the game while having the personality to handle a star-studded club, Girardi has failed miserably. The only reason the Yankees have gotten this far with him as manager is because of talent. With each glaring mistake; every instance of utter cluelessness, he inches closer and closer to being the one reason his team loses a series that, by all rights, should've ended on Tuesday in a four-game sweep.

    He overmanages.

    He undermanages.

    His explanations are circular, generic and nonsensical.

    And now his club, their fans and the media are beginning to show their terror at the prospect of a loss with the obvious caveats and bluster. "We still lead 3-2"; "We're heading home"; "The advantage is still ours"; "We can't lose, we're the Yankees"; and the paranoid and disaster inducing: "We've still got C.C. Sabathia for Sunday."

    If they're already thinking about Sunday----with a Sabathia who will be pitching for the third time within nine days----then they're already dead.

    You read it here first: they'd better wrap this up in game 6, because if it gets to game 7, they're going to lose, they're going to lose big and there'll be one person to blame----the manager.

    Don't let anyone tell you anything different.

• Does this qualify as "getting ugly"?

    Dodgers owner Frank McCourt and his wife Jamie are divorcing. This circumstance led McCourt to fire his wife as CEO of the club. 

    Yikes.

    No more comment on this story. Just yikes.

• The Phillies overwhelm the Dodgers:

    Would things have been different had the Dodgers won game 1?

    It's a classic second guess of Dodgers manager Joe Torre to question his decision to start 21-year-old Clayton Kershaw in the opening game. There are arguments on both sides of the equation.

    On the positive side, Kershaw has wicked stuff; his numbers this season (aside from his won-lost record) were fantastic; and he seems to have the personality to handle such a pressure-packed assignment. 

    On the negative side, he's 21; he's very inexperienced; and the Dodgers had a multitude of veteran options to use in his stead. 

    Torre has been managing for a very, very, very long time, and while his strategy has always been slightly above average to good, his main strength is psychologically understanding his players. An intelligent, astute and empathetic man, Torre more than any other manager in baseball understands the mentality of each and every one of his players from the stars (Torre was one himself) to the journeymen hoping to hang on and wring every last ounce out of big league life (see Mientkiewicz, Doug). Obviously, he accounted for every aspect the decision to start Kershaw entailed, but in the end it turned out to be a gaffe.

    A game 1 start was far too much to lay on the shoulders of such a young pitcher. Trusting him as the tone-setter looked smart as Kershaw rolled through the first four innings before one falling domino led to another as walks, wild pitches and a homer tore the wheels off. That more than anything else----the Phillies power; their bullpen coming through----set this series up for how it evolved. (Of course, we might not be talking about this had Jonathan Broxton gotten one more out in game 4, but such is the nature of the playoffs.)

    If it were me----and I should've said this beforehand----I would've started one of my veterans. It takes a special type of young pitcher who's got the breadth of experience and results to warrant a game 1 start. I'm talking about Dwight Gooden, who at Kershaw's age already had a Rookie of the Year award, a Cy Young Award and had posted one of the most dominating seasons (1985) of a pitcher in the history of baseball at any age; I'm talking Gary Nolan, who was so cocksure of himself that he responded to the statement on reaching the big leagues, "wait 'til you see Tom Seaver pitch" with "wait 'til Tom Seaver sees me pitch." I'm talking Steve Avery, who early in his career, attacked hitters like they'd keyed his car and kicked his dog. 

    As great as Kershaw promises to be----he'll contend for the Cy Young Award as early as next year----he wasn't ready for that prime assignment. It was a mistake by Torre in an area of the game where he's usually impeccable, judging the mental makeup of his players. It could very well have cost his club a trip to the World Series.

• Yes, I picked Dodgers in 6 and I was wrong:

    This series came down to the Phillies offensive relentlessness, that their bullpen got the big outs when it counted and the Dodgers bullpen didn't. If you combine the Phillies regular set of bashers with the players like Carlos Ruiz who rise to the occasion in the playoffs, and they're hard to stop. Even when they get shaky pitching performances, they're never out of a game because they don't quit and have that devastating power from the lineup, top-to-bottom.

    On another note, despite my having been wrong about the NLCS; and even though depending on whom you talk to I inspire two emotions, love and hate and will get a variety of opinions regarding things I've said and done (I have no regrets), there's one thing that can be said about me from now to the end of time. It's the following:

    At least I never slept with Lumbergh.

• Steve Phillips----the Bill Lumbergh of the baseball world:

    Without sounding condescending, for those of you unfamiliar with the famous Bill Lumbergh, I suggest you rent the film Office Space of click here to learn all you want (or don't want) to know about Lumbergh.

    And I thought I was self-destructive.

    I'm not getting into the gossipy stuff; nor the abuse being heaped on this clearly unstable young woman who has far bigger issues than this current controversy to deal with----no, my question to Steve Phillips is why he did this. After the way he almost lost his job as GM of the Mets with a similar dalliance involving a club employee in Port St. Lucie in which the team was sued and he was allowed to remain in his job, did he not learn his lesson? 

    ESPN has granted Phillips a leave-of-absence to deal with his problems at home similarly to the way the Mets did. I've long repeated that had I been Fred Wilpon, I too would've given Phillips a leave-of-absence as Mets GM----a permanent leave-of-absence. But the Mets let him come back and he did a reasonably good job in building what turned out to be the second best team in the National League for the late 90s and in 2000.

    After the Mets fired him in 2003, Phillips's reputation as a GM was toxic in part because of a series of moves----acquiring Roberto Alomar and Mo Vaughn; firing Bobby Valentine to name three----that were mistakes. His portrayal as a foil/buffoon to be preyed upon by the Ivy League educated "geniuses" and Billy Beane in Moneyball also contributed to this idea that he was an inept executive. Like most of Moneyball, it was agenda-driven, out-of-context and inaccurate.

    Rather than seek another job inside baseball as an assistant GM, the well-spoken, handsome and telegenic Phillips ventured into broadcasting----and was very good. His profile increased at the ESPN as he gradually rebuilt his reputation as a smart baseball guy and he found himself as the third man in the booth on Sunday Night Baseball to counteract the insipid Joe Morgan with actual thought-driven analysis. In addition to that, he'd even replenished his reputation inside baseball to be mentioned as a GM candidate again. His star was rising----and he demolished it again with his inability to control himself around any and all women regardless of their age, instability or whatever. 

    People give second and third chances regularly in this country especially for sex scandals. Former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer is in the process of re-creating himself and doing a fairly reasonable job of it considering the laughingstock he was after his involvement with prostitutes. Phillips may not be that lucky because he clearly doesn't get it.

    He's done this to himself and he's going to have a hard time coming back again even if ESPN lets him keep his job. This is what's commonly classified as a train wreck.

• Viewer Mail 10.22.2009:

Jeff at Red State Blue State writes: 

Listening to the reports, it seems like Torii Hunter was mixed up in second guessing his own teammates (Brian Fuentes especially) and calling them out on it, which caused some in-house bickering (rare for an Angel club I admit). Surely seeing the Yankees arrogant pre-sale of World Series tickets prior to clinching the pennant will make all that go away and get these guys fired up.

    That was strange coming from an Angels clubhouse that handles their issues in-house and without leaks. It was mostly due to frustration that they let the Yankees get off the deck and put the team in a hole. I'm sure Mike Scioscia squashed it almost immediately and the team is back on the same page. 

    There are defensive reactions everywhere regarding the Yankees blatant arrogance in announcing the sale of World Series tickets while they still have something of an important factor remaining in winning the pannant. We're getting "the Angels are selling World Series tickets too, blah, blah, blah." But there's an aura of "we've got it won" around the Yankees even as you can hear the concern amid the bluster; concern that's left unsaid with the inaudible, "don't we?"

    I'll say this, the palpable worry will begin to build into barely concealed panic if the Angels get the series back to New York; and if it gets to game 7? Hold on tight because their paranoia will manifest itself in ways that we cannot begin to fathom. When things spiral, they'll eat each other. Watch.

Michael writes two comments RE the Yankees:

we're not going down despite all of your hopes and dreams--but your comments on GI joe have been spot on--all along...

yeah you're right those angels need to be motivated. those world series ticket sales will be just "the ticket" to get them going !!! you can punch their ticket to a world series parade in disneyland baby-- heck yeah!

    The Yankees may or may not close it out, but there was similar laughter in 2004; in 2006; in 2007. I'd be ready for anything if I were a Yankee fan especially with A.J, Burnett starting game 5. The Angels have shown an unmatched instinct for survival in this trying year on and off the field.

    Disneyland might be too expensive even for people with big league paychecks.

    I think there's a misconception here. On some level, I'd like to see the Angels win because of the aforementioned issues, but the main reason I'm rooting for them is because I picked them. If I'd picked the Yankees, I'd be rooting for them. I'm almost completely indifferent to most results at this point including those involving the Mets because as sick as I am, I'd rather be right than most anything else.

    With Girardi, I don't think anyone who's watched him manage can debate that his lack of experience as a manager has hindered him in all aspects of the job despite his intelligence.

    In his year with the Marlins, it was dealing with bosses; with the Yankees it was the media and player relations in 2008, and in 2009 his tweaking based on obtuse numbers in making decisions that aren't just bizarre, but are blatantly stupid. The Yankees players must know this and will try to put up another crooked number to mitigate the manager. If John Lackey doesn't do them the favors that Scott Kazmir did with the walks, they could start to press in the later innings for fear of losing and having to come back home with the Angels still alive. Girardi's overmanaging will creep up again in a close game. You have reason to be concerned about that.

• Yankees 10-Angels 1:

    The Yankees have finally found the recipe to win. Presumably in a silent contract among the players, it must've been decided that in order to make sure no Barry Switzeresque mistakes were made, they had to remove their collective fates from the hands of skittish manager Joe Girardi. After the game 3 debacle of inexplicably removing Dave Robertson in favor of Alfredo Aceves (and watching it end in a loss almost immediately thereafter), Alex Rodriguez and C.C. Sabathia combined to demolish the Angels last night in a 10-1 blowout. 

    ARod continues his reinvention as a more real, likable human being with an awesome display of power. Sabathia was masterful as he handcuffed the Angels and worked his way around several jams. What this game came down to was the Yankees repeatedly getting on base against Scott Kazmir, and Sabathia's skill at getting the big outs.

    The Angels have not hit in the clutch for this entire series and they've continuously put the Yankees into a position for big innings with walks. As poorly as the Yankees have performed with runners on base so far in the series, it was only a matter of time before they busted out and put up a crooked number. In order to beat them, the home runs they hit must be of the solo variety. Any team that keeps giving them one opportunity after another will be made to pay as the Angels were last night.

    The Yankees baserunning was atrocious again with the ridiculous and humiliating double play that went uncalled by the usually superior umpire Tim McClelland at third base. Both Jorge Posada and Robinson Cano were off the base at third when they were tagged by Angels catcher Mike Napoli. Cano has something of an excuse because he's a space cadet (and it's the Yankees own fault for enabling his laziness), but Posada? His head is spending more and more time firmly entrenched in his ass at the plate, on the bases and in the field. 

    Moving forward, the Angels need to focus on one pitch at a time and get at A.J. Burnett early in game 5. John Lackey will keep them in the game, but they have to score if they want to win. Getting the series back to New York and letting the panic start to set in about Girardi and what he might pull in a close game to sabotage his team is the plan of attack. One ultra-important facet the Angels must implement is giving Burnett a chance to get nervous and wild. Don't let him get his mechanics and groove together. Patience within an aggressive framework is the key; it's a fine line to walk, but so is being down 3 games to 1 to that Yankees lineup with a blazing hot ARod.

    And if the Angels weren't sufficiently motivated by staring into the abyss of a 3-1 deficit and the prospect of going home, there's the following...

• The Yankees are putting World Series tickets on sale:

    Spitting into the face of karma with such unfettered arrogance seems to be the Yankee way; even this is a little out of line considering what a resilient team they're playing, but they're doing it anyway. 

    Beginning today at 10 AM, the Yankees are putting a limited number of World Series tickets on sale----Newsday Story.

    Don't they have something to do first? 

    A little something called winning the pennant? 

    It's stunning how a team can be so self-important despite having won nothing for eight years. It brings me back to the 80s when the Mets were running this city (ah, glory days) and the Yankee fans with their laughingstock of a club were still strutting around as if they'd won six titles in eight years. 

    If I were Mike Scioscia, this (very) early sale of tickets to a World Series that still might not happen goes up on the Angels bulletin board in gigantic block letters to let his team know what the Yankees organization thinks of them and their chances at a comeback. Envisioning the joy of celebrating in the middle of Yankee Stadium amid the tears of a shocked crowd would stifle the arrogance----for a while anyway.

• Who gets the Indians job?

    It sounds like Manny Acta has been impressive as he's just completed the second round of interviews for the Indians job. The Indians are a good spot for Acta and he's probably the best fit. He's young, the players like him and he knows what he's doing.

    They've also had a second interview with Bobby Valentine, but I still find it hard to believe that the Indians are going to pay Valentine and cede the control over the roster that he's going to want. There's always the possibility that Valentine is so desperate to get back into the big league managerial ring that he takes less money and control than he normally would, but given the shaky status of several managers in prime places starting early next season (Joe Maddon in Tampa for example), it makes little sense for Valentine to settle for a job that's not the right fit.

    My guess is that Acta will get the job and he'll be a good choice.

• Speaking of managers:

    For those who diminish the importance of a manager during the regular season and, especially, in the post-season need to seriously reconsider their misplaced belief in the nonsensical and self-absolving theory of the playoffs being a "crapshoot". 

    Joe Girardi's screw-up in game 3 may or may not come back to haunt the Yankees, but it's not unheard of for a clueless manager to make gigantic mess of his team's post-season hopes. On the same token, there are circumstances in which the manager had nothing to do with anything the team accomplished positively or negatively; and there are situations where the manager has steered his team to victory through strategic brilliance and/or force of will.

    The 2008 Rays made it to the World Series in spite of manager Joe Maddon's absent-mindedness and baffling strategic decisions. (The most egregious being his failure to use David Price as the suspended game 5 resumed.) Talent can carry a team far, but not past a manager's screw-ups. There's no guarantee that Price would've been any better than Grant Balfour and J.P. Howell, but he ended up using Price for the eighth inning anyway. Price should've started the inning when the suspended game resumed. 

    Even with all of the criticism he receives for the number of times his teams have faltered in the playoffs, the failures weren't due to any strategic mishaps----the Rick Ankiel fiasco being the notable exception----Tony La Russa was the one most responsible for righting his staggering Cardinals in 2006 as they almost collapsed out of the playoffs and went on to win the World Series. With any other manager, the Cardinals would've been dispatched in the NLCS by the Mets in 5 games and possibly by the Padres in the NLDS. 

    The 2001 Diamondbacks functioned with the equivalent of an empty suit as a manager in Bob Brenly. Brenly wrote the lineup card and made the moves, but aside from that was of very little value or was much of a detriment. You hear longtime managers and coaches say that no team is self-sustaining, but that Diamondbacks team----with the likes of Steve Finley, Mark Grace, Luis Gonzalez and Matt Williams; plus the devastating duo of Randy Johnson and Curt Schilling----made the group one that was hard to make into a mess. To Brenly's credit, he held his ego in check and kept his hands off.

    You can't blame Brenly for the blown World Series games by closer Byung-Hyun Kim. Brenly had a lead and his closer in the game, what else was he supposed to do? Of course, he doesn't get credit for the wins either. But he has a World Series win as a manager, and that's something that can't be taken away.

    The manager is important in that he can very easily destroy something that could've been good. Don't let anyone diminish his importance in most instances. A good manager is worth 5 wins a year; a great one from between 10 and 15 wins. They do make a difference. 

• Angels 5-Yankees 4:

    This game might end up being a flash-point of what-might-have-been for many, many people.

    Let's take a look.

Joe Girardi's(over)managing:

    The worst thing in the whole controversy of why Girardi decided to haphazardly yank Dave Robertson in favor of Alfredo Aceves in the bottom of the 11th inning was the nonsensical and bottom-line horseshit explanation he provided in the post-game news conference. Girardi said the following:

"We like the matchup with Ace [Aceves] better, with the two guys [Kendrick and Mathis](...)"

    What?

    There was no matchup history between the participants. Howie Kendrick was 1 for 2 vs Robertson and had never batted against Aceves; Jeff Mathis had never faced Robertson and was 0 for 2 vs Aceves. It was a baseless decision that Girardi pulled out of his ass and it exploded all over everyone and let the Angels back into the series.

    As ridiculous as the initial decision was----and there was no reason for it----Girardi's non-explanation would have sent me into an even bigger frenzy than the move itself if I was a Yankee fan. A manager can get away with anything as long as he has a viable reason for it and isn't regurgitating pompous and condescending crap surreptitiously referencing unsaid ambiguities like "longtime baseball experience" and "the coaches and I felt blah, blah, blah". But that's exactly what Girardi did in combining a buffoonish move with a non-explanation.

    Robertson has closer stuff. Hitters have trouble squaring him up; he struck out an absurd 63 in 43 innings this season and the Angels looked relieved and bewildered that Girardi pulled him after...after nothing. Robertson had retired both Juan Rivera and Kendry Morales easily when Girardi ran to his book, looked inside and trudged out of the dugout toting his hook.

    In comparison to Robertson in terms of stuff and results, Aceves is a contact pitcher and more of a long reliever/spot starter. In short, there's no comparison between the two in terms of ability. The move quite literally made no sense in any context.

    Even if it had worked, it was still the wrong thing to do. The Yankees had a chokehold on this series and to a man, to a fan, had the game gone on past the eleventh inning, does anyone think the Yankees wouldn't have found a way to score whether it was from a longball; some heroics from Derek Jeter or Alex Rodriguez; or something positive happening for a hot team? 

    The Angels are back in this series for one reason and one reason only: because Yankees manager Joe Girardi left a crack in the wall for them to climb through. And they did. If the Yankees go on to lose this series, it won't be because of what happened in games 4 through 7; it will be because of what Girardi did in game 3. You won't have to search for a turning point because it was right there in front of you as Girardi summoned Aceves from the bullpen.

The Angels are in this thing:

    You can feel these things in the air sometimes.

    Despite their intestinal fortitude in coming back from everything that's befallen them this year----from injuries to key players to the horrific death of Nick Adenhart----the Angels would not have quit had they fallen behind 3 games to 0, but the sheer reality of the situation would have made a comeback from such a deficit highly unlikely. 

    I don't think anyone who's watched the Yankees since the playoffs started wasn't watching and waiting for more dramatics as game 3 wore on. The lineup, aside from the likes of Melky Cabrera, is relentless. Every time the Angels fought back, the Yankees came up with some powerful response; but the main Achilles heels in the construction of this club are in the manager's office and the shortness of the starting rotation and now this is manifesting itself in reality.

    Even with the necessity of going old-school with a three-man starting rotation, the Angels were on the verge of being caught in a bear trap having to win four straight games, two of which would be against C.C. Sabathia. That game 3 win----gift-wrapped with a bow by the Yankees manager----let the Angels back in the series and could be the one thing that turns the tide in their favor.

    There was a sigh of relief from the Angels faithful when Kendrick scored the winning run; a sense of, yeah, we're all right and we're in this thing now. The tightness had never yielded from the time ARod's homer sailed over Bobby Abreu's glove in game 2; through Vladimir Guerrero's game-tying homer; to the inability to cash in with a runner on third and no outs in the tenth----an aura of knowledge that the longer the game went on, the more probable it was that the Angels would lose.

    That was gone the moment Kendrick touched home plate. The tension was broken and the tide in this fight is turning. Now the body work the Angels have been inflicting on the Yankees starters with the high pitch counts and the overwork and bizarre deployment of relievers from Girardi is going to give the Angels the advantage the longer this goes.

    On the other side, you can also feel the palpable sense of panic from Yankee fans. They won't admit it, but methinks they doth protest too much with the caveats to the tune of, "well, we're still leading 2-1"; "C.C. tomorrow"; and, "we'll be okay"; but what's left unsaid from the last statement are the final two words: "won't we?"

    It's happening just as I have foreseen.

    The Yankees are going down.

    And I think they know it.

•  Viewer Mail 10.20.2009:

Jeff at Red State Blue State writes RE Girardi:

Do you ever get the sense that guys like Jeter, Posada, Rodriguez -- really intelligent baseball minds -- are seriously second-guessing their half wit manager's moves? I can just imagine what was going through Jeter's head when Girardi brought in Aceves there at the end.

    Not only do I get that sense, I know they were looking at each other and wondering what he was doing when he yanked Robertson. I guarantee you without even having seen it that ARod and Jeter glanced at each other with a "this is trouble" look on their faces. No words; no open insubordination; just a sense of knowing that they're letting a tough team off the deck and if things spiral as they did in 2004, they're in deep, deep trouble. It began with Mathis's rocket off of Aceves and it's not going to end anytime soon. 

    If the Yankees go on to lose this series, I'd fire Girardi for this.

• Phillies 5-Dodgers 4:

    I can understand Dodgers closer Jonathan Broxton treading lightly around Matt Stairs with one out and a 1-run lead; Stairs took Broxton deep in last year's NLCS and will still be able to hit anyone's fastball when he's 60. Aside from that, there was no excuse for hitting Carlos Ruiz.

    When are teams going to learn that it's not just the Phillies power that lets them score so often and come back from deficits so consistently, it's that they constantly get runners on base in front of the top of the lineup. The game was right there in the Dodgers hands. They had their 100-mph closer in the game and the bottom of the Phillies lineup at the plate----and they still blew it. 

    I dunno if the Dodgers can recover from that, but it'll help in game 5 if they jump on the still-shaky Cole Hamels early and get Vicente Padilla a lead so they can relax and forget about the debacle of game 4. The words "one game at a time" were never more true and no one knows that better than manager Joe Torre and that's what he'll tell his team. Whether or not it's going to do any good is the question, and I don't know the answer.   

• Phillies 11-Dodgers 0:

    I missed Treehouse of Horror 20 on The Simpsons for that?

    A bit of fictional comedy to lighten the mood from the Prince follows:

Dodgers pitching coach Rick Honeycutt visits the mound during starter Hiroki Kuroda's hellish first inning to calm his pitcher. Before even addressing Kuroda, he turns to catcher Russell Martin and begins the dialogue:

Honeycutt: So, aside from almost killing the entire defense with missiles, how's he throwing?

Martin: How do I know? I haven't caught one yet. I'll keep you posted.

    It was that kind of night for the Dodgers. The game was over before it began as Kuroda was horrendous. It's rare that you see big league hitters square a pitcher----especially a pitcher who's pretty good----to that degree, but it happened. The Phillies lineup can crush, but last night was on a level with batting practice. You cannot fall behind a pitcher as hot as Cliff Lee's been this post-season and expect a different result from the 11-0 pasting. Had the Dodgers kept the game close, there was more of a chance to get to Lee, but the immediate deficit ended this game by the fourth inning even in the bandbox of Citizens Bank Park.

    The broadcasters told a story (can't remember if it was Count Fistula aka Chip Carey; or Buck Martinez) in which the Phillies basically said that even if Kuroda looked good in a simulated game in Arizona on the way back to the big leagues after his neck problem, pitching well in Arizona wasn't the same as pitching against the Phillies. That kind of arrogance is painfully obnoxious to start with; it's even worse when it's true. 

    Accept the beating and turn the page is my advice, and I guarantee Joe Torre told his team the same thing.

• A note about Redskins coach (for now) Jim Zorn:

    Just fire the guy. 

    Not only is he being roasted over the coals and hung out to dry simultaneously, but he's being humiliated as well. The Redskins front office has stripped Zorn----the head coach!----of his play-calling duties. Along with relieving him of said duties, they also relieved him of his balls in the organization and around the league. Is is necessary to emasculate the man? Firing him is more humane. At least it's final. This is a sports version of torture and it's cruel. 

• Viewer Mail 10.19.2009:

    Lots of viewer mail today, which is a good sign; and not one has stated their desire to strangle me...yet. But it's early.

Jeff at Red State Blue State writes RE Yankees-Angels:

2009 ALCS Game 2 was an instant classic. I watched this game at a bar with about 200 like-minded, non-Yankee/Angel invested drunkards and you woulda thought we were watching USA v. the SOVIETS the way we were hootin' and hollerin'. Wish they were all that grand.

I should also mention that I wasn't pleased with the result, which is probably why I woke up this morning with a raging headache.

    Was the result the genesis of the headache or was it the copious consumption of said beverages? I'm dubious.

Jane Heller at Confessions of a She-Fan writes RE ARod:

I liked your analysis of A-Rod's at bat against Fuentes. I kept saying, "They're trying to jam him so he can't extend his arms." And then he managed to hit that homer. I agree he would have been out if he'd gotten a slider in the dirt. I also think the Angels' bats aren't going to remain dormant forever. This isn't over by any means. But winning two at home was sweet.

    I'd suspect that teams have begun (or have long been) extending the scouting of ARod to the traps he's obviously setting. It just so happened that Brian Fuentes and the Angels walked right into it----and they're smart, which makes it worse. If Fuentes wanted to move ARod off the plate, he had to fire the ball Roger Clemens-like right at his coconut without remorse. Then go with the slider in the dirt. He just made a mistake with pitch selection, location or both and it cost him.

Kyle Johnson writes RE Vladimir Guerrero:

I thought that Vlad Guerrero was going to have a huge turnaround in this series. That the game winning two RBI single was going to give him confidence and a sense of purpose. Any chances that he'll turn things around in this series, or am I destined to watch him leave the bases loaded more times than I can stomach?

    Guerrero is unlike any hitter I've ever seen. He swings at anything and everything, but doesn't strike out; he rarely walks unintentionally, but still manages a high on base percentage; and he'll look hideous for 20 straight at bats, then hit a ball that was either over his head or was ready to bounce in the dirt 400 feet out of the park. He's murdered Andy Pettitte in his career; if he's going to get healthy, it'll start today.

    I wouldn't count him out just yet. If the Angels can get this back to New York, Guerrero will be right in the middle of things. Once games 6 and 7 start, Guerrero's the guy for the Yankees to worry about. They know it and will continue to tread carefully around him. The problem is that they can't pitch him carefully because he swings----and hits----anything anywhere. He's still dangerous and can rise to the occasion at any time. Have faith.

Matt at Diamondhacks writes:

The Angels dont quit and I agree with your Saturday conclusions: on Aybar, Girardi, scoring against NY's second tier, etc. Only quibble is that Fuentes' pitch to Arod was out, not in, altho Arod inside-outed it as you suggested. I forget where the catcher setup, but it was way too good a pitch on 0-2. To that guy, anyway.

    I looked at the video of ARod's homer and it looked slightly inside to me, but you might be right. I don't think it was necessarily a bad pitch; not many hitters would've had the presence of mind to anticipate it and execute such a plan on 0-2; had Fuentes thrown a slider, ARod couldn't have done anything but hope to get a piece of it and stay alive in the at bat.

    It's clear that ARod's on another level from almost anyone else aside from the usual suspects like Albert Pujols and Joe Mauer. In fact, since the pitch was more out over the plate than I thought, it becomes even more impressive that ARod collapsed his forearms: A) intentionally; and B) still had the power to get the ball out of the park to the opposite field.

John Seal writes:

Interesting points about Girardi's over-managing in Game 2. In addition to the examples cited, how about pinch-running Brett Gardner for Nick Swisher? Has Swisher become a terrible baserunner since the A's traded him? And is Gardner's speed sufficient reason to take Swisher's superb batting eye out of the lineup?

    I thought the Gardner for Swisher move was smart on several levels. Gardner is, I think, the fastest guy in baseball next to the sprinter's speed of the Pirates Andrew McCutchen (that guy's speed is insane); Gardner could've stolen second and immediately been in scoring position (in fact, he should've taken off on one of the first two pitches to Robinson Cano). Gardner's a major distraction to the pitcher as well, which could lead to a mistake to the hitter. You're also improving the defense from Swisher's shakiness. I had no problem with that decision from Girardi. You have an argument for leaving Swisher in, but considering Girardi's other screw-ups, the Gardner/Swisher decision was something that made sense at least.     

• Yankees 4-Angels 3:

    This was a helluva game. Let's take a look.

The Angels missed opportunities on the bases:

    You can't get away with leaving 16 runners on base against normal teams with normal lineups. Against the Yankees? Forget it. Eventually, something's going to happen where they're going to get you and this was exemplified with Alex Rodriguez's game-tying homer and the way the game ended. There's no let up whatsoever aside from maybe Melky Cabrera and Brett Gardner; and even they have attributes that make them dangerous. Cabrera has something of a flair for the dramatic and Gardner might be the fastest white guy I've ever seen, right up there with former Buffalo Bills wide receiver Don Beebe.

    Vladimir Guerrero is so aggravating in his impatience, but every time you start to scream, "what are you swinging at?!?", he does something to justify his approach; but not last night. The Angels simply must cash in on opportunities to score and cushion a lead especially against a struggling A.J. Burnett and the second and third tier Yankee relievers like Alfredo Aceves, Damaso Marte and Phil Coke.

    On another note of missed opportunities, how many more calls have to be blown on the bases?

    I'm iffy on the safe call on Erick Aybar's "neighborhood play" in which umpire Jerry Layne didn't give Aybar the leeway to make a play that's rarely, if ever, called. Technically, Aybar didn't touch the base, but the call is almost never made and no one would even have noticed had Layne called Melky Cabrera out. Then again, the rule is what it is and if Aybar didn't touch the base, then Layne made the right call even if it was fussy.

    It also appears that on every close call at first base, the umpires are starting with a template of "out" and only calling a runner safe if he has no other choice. The majority of those calls have gone against the Angels.

ARod's homer:

    While teammate Derek Jeter is rightfully feted for his florid genius and skill at knowing what to do at all times, Alex Rodriguez isn't credited for being as baseball-smart as he is. ARod is more cagey and stealth about it, but it's no less important. 

    From the way he tries to sneak peeks back at the catcher to see where he's set up; to his defensive craftiness; to his lulling pitchers to sleep with bad swings designed to look bad to get the same pitch later in an at bat and be ready for it, this is a function of ARod's longtime "aw shucks" attitude going back to his days as a high school phenom. Teammates with the Mariners, Rangers and Yankees always looked at ARod's calculating nature----replete with behaviors and statements designed to portray an image rather than be real----with reactions ranging from disdain to bewilderment to scoffing.

    ARod knows how gifted he is and it's only been this year that his personality has been closer to that of a human being than what some PR firm suggests he be for maximum marketability. The steroid revelations ended up being a boon to this more likable, real and playoff clutch version of ARod.

    The game-tying homer was a slick version of lulling a pitcher into doing what the hitter expected and the hitter having the skills to take advantage of it.

    Brian Fuentes jumped ahead in the count by challenging ARod with fastballs. The two-strike pitch was perfect. Fuentes fired a fastball high and inside designed to force ARod to collapse his forearms and----supposedly----spend his power. Tom Seaver was a big believer in that pitch. If a hitter is too quick and reacts normally, he'll spin his hips and hook it deep, but foul...but ARod was ready for what Fuentes was going to do. Had ARod taken the pitch for a ball or fouled it off, the next pitch would've been a slider in the dirt that more-than-likely would've gotten most hitters out; but ARod was savvy enough to bring his forearms in, get the bat head on the ball and drive it over the right field wall to tie the game. It was not an accident; it was a student of the game outsmarting his opponent.

Joe Girardi's overmanaging:

    Before getting into Girardi, one question: how many conferences at the mound are needed for the Yankees pitchers and catchers to get together on strategy?

    When's enough enough?

    Jose Molina and A.J. Burnett are supposed to have a symbiotic relationship that requires the Yankees to bench Jorge Posada in favor of Molina, but they were having a romantic interlude between every other pitch. It may be time to start considering limiting the number of visits a catcher gets to make to the pitcher in an inning. Three perhaps would be sufficient. It was enough already.

    With Girardi, what was the reason he yanked Joba Chamberlain after facing one batter? For putting Phil Hughes in a tie game in the eighth? For using Mariano Rivera in the eighth inning in relief of Hughes? For leaving himself with the likes of Damaso Marte to get important outs? For relegating himself to using Chad Gaudin in what could've been a long relief appearance rendering him unavailable for a possible game 4 start?

    If Girardi comes out with the crap that "the eighth inning belongs to Hughes" or some similar nonsense, then he's a fool. There was no earthly reason to pull Chamberlain after one batter; no reason to use Hughes when he did; or to put Rivera in so early when he might've needed both in the ninth inning and beyond.

    These were more examples of Girardi "doing stuff" just because. He spends his bullets far too soon in these playoff games and it's going to cost him eventually. In a metaphor apropos for last night's game, you can only dance through the raindrops for so long before getting soaked, and it's only a matter of time.

There's a lot of series to be played:

    This series is reminding me of the 1999 NLCS between the Mets and the Braves in which the Mets fell behind 3 games to 0, came storming back to take two straight and get the series back to Atlanta, appeared on the verge of tying the series with heroic comebacks in game 6, but eventually lost in extra innings.

    While 2000 was a great season for the Mets and their fans, the 1999 team holds a special place with me because of how they got as far as they did. They were widely acknowledged as the best team in baseball in August only to stumble down the stretch (sounds familiar) and look to be on the verge of elimination before a four game sweep of the Pirates to end the season and a lot of help from the Brewers, who took two of three from the Wild Card leading Reds, forced a one-game playoff in Cincinnati. 

    I'll never forget the Sunday night image of Reds manager Jack McKeon sitting in the dugout and surveying the scene, waiting out the Milwaukee rain delay with his ever-present humongous cigar sticking out of his mouth. Then, in the one-game playoff, Edgardo Alfonzo homered in the first inning; Al Leiter pitched a masterful 2-hit shutout; with the final out is still etched in my memory as Alfonzo caught a line drive, pointed toward the sky in thanks and Leiter punched the air with both arms in relief and joy, then wrapped Mike Piazza in a bear hug as the team rushed onto the field.

    John Franco, beside himself with his first trip to the post-season, looked ready to cry; and Bobby Valentine was hugging everyone in sight including arch-enemies Bobby Bonilla and Steve Phillips. Then the NY Daily News headline said one simple word over a photo of the Mets celebrating: BELIEVE.

    The Mets, heavy underdogs to the Diamondbacks, attacked Randy Johnson like he owed them money and won the NLDS on Todd Pratt's walkoff homer. Finally, they got to the Braves, fell behind 2 games to 0 in Atlanta before their feet had landed on the ground from the previous week, lost game 3 amid the John Rocker sideshow/fiasco; and fought back from oblivion in game 4. Most people point to Robin Ventura's "grand single" in game 5 as the most memorable moment; but to me, what exemplified the sheer guts of that Mets team was how they were running out of pitchers and the game 4 starter, Rick Reed, who'd been brilliant in staving off elimination, was pumping throws in the bullpen to come into the game in relief the next day.

    That was playoff baseball.

    They got the series back to Atlanta, Leiter gave up five in the first inning and the Mets played catch-up the rest of the night. Piazza sent the entire state of Georgia into a combination of shock and panic with a rocket over the right-center field wall off of John Smoltz to tie the game. The Mets bullpen blew two saves and the Braves won the pennant, but that Mets team refused to quit. Had they won game 6, they would have won game 7.

    I see a similar dynamic in this Angels club.

    They don't quit.

    Two games to none Yankee lead or not, this series is coming back to New York.

    Believe.

•  Viewer Mail 10.18.2009:

Michael Fierman writes:

One thing you are SO right about...Girardi's over managing is gonna kill them one of these games. I can't  believe it didn't do them in tonight. but they are at home and don't  lose at at home.. still he makes me nuts...

    What's even more aggravating is the lack of excuses for it. With many managers, you can provide the caveat that they're not that intelligent to begin with, so they get a pass for being stupid or dogmatic. They might be lucky; or they might have the force of personality to handle a clubhouse which mitigates any overt lack of brains, but they get a pass for their limited natural abilities for what they can do. With Girardi, such is not the case. He's a really, really bright guy. He should know better. 

    Like a talented individual who----for one reason or another----doesn't fulfill his potential, it's frustrating to see the same mistakes over-and-over again.*

    *One of my professors in college doubled as my individual tutor. She helped me tremendously----Donna Masini, she's a published poet and novelist and is slightly discombobulated----and once said the following to me, verbatim: 

Y'know Paul, sometimes I just wanna STRANGLE you!"

    I might've taken it as an affectionate joke between teacher and pupil if she hadn't been shaking with rage and a look of utter frustration (that I seem far too skilled at eliciting) and her hands clenched an inch apart as if she was already committing the felony.

    I have that affect of people. I get an emotional response. It's my gift. It's my curse. 

    Girardi is going to cost his team a game because of his tinkering and fiddling. There's no need for it, but he's surrounded by sycophants and yes-men who agree with everything he says (where's Don Zimmer when you need him?) or he's ignoring advice. He's walking the tightrope and if he falls, he'll bring the Yankees season down with him.   

• Pedro Martinez's masterpiece goes to waste:

    Having believed that not only would Pedro Martinez lose in his game 2 start vs the Dodgers, but that he'd get pounded mercilessly like a shot fighter until someone pulled the plug, I was put in my place by Pedro's masterful performance of changing speeds, throwing strikes, and keeping the Dodgers hitters off balance. With little more than guile and an occasional ability to reach back for legit fastball here and there, Pedro worked around the plate; gently lulled the hitters to sleep with a vast array of junk; and made the hitters----and his naysayers----look foolish. 

    That said, Pedro did not experience a renaissance as I implied was the Phillies one hope in his start. In the sports sense, such a renaissance could only be described as a player who has once known greatness regaining that for a brief spurt in the exact same way as he'd known it in his first incarnation. The people I mentioned----Orel Hershiser, Evander Holyfield and Wayne Gretzky----were all able to regain that greatness if only for a moment. 

    Hershiser, whose arm surgery had robbed him of the power sinker that created the shutout machine he was in 1988, regained his velocity for the Indians in the 1990s during their playoff runs. Instead of gutting his way through with a sinker, curve and his brain, the adrenaline of the moment pumped his fastball back into the mid-90s, something the scouting reports never would've expected or anticipated.

    Gretzky, as an ancillary player in the final stages of his career for the Rangers in 1997, picked and chose his spots during the regular season to show what it was that gained him the nickname "The Great One"; it was only in the playoffs during a surprising run for the team to the Eastern Conference Finals that Gretzky showed he could regain the greatness in the big moments.

    Holyfield's heroic demolition of a heavily favored Mike Tyson inspired memories of the fighter he was in his early-20s; it was a brutal beating that owed more to a warrior rising and refusing to be afraid of his intimidating opponent. It was a simple, yet perfectly executed strategy of belief in oneself and emotional control.

    As great as Pedro was yesterday, he was not the Pedro Martinez of 1999. Having not shown his power fastball since early 2006 with the Mets, it was foolish to expect even the gravity of the moment (possibly one of the last of a great career) to translate into a rediscovery of the pure force of nature he was with the Red Sox. What Pedro did was take advantage of every last weapon in his arsenal and use the Dodgers anxiousness to his advantage in deploying his innate knowledge of the craft of pitching to complete seven beautiful innings of 2-hit, shutout ball. He struck out three and kept the Dodgers off balance for the entire duration of his outing. 

    Anyone who watched the game with an analytical eye of "stuff" would tell you that Pedro's result was out-of-line with the sum of the parts. His fastball was nothing save for a couple of instances of reaching back; and his breaking stuff was mediocre. What carried him through was the way he varied his pitches and used artistry over blunt force. The Phillies very nearly pulled off a magic trick worthy of Pedro by taking the second game in Dodger Stadium; and with Cliff Lee ready to go for the jugular in game 3 in Philadelphia, the series could've been close to being over. Instead, once Pedro was out, the Phillies bullpen imploded and ruined what could've been a fitting final chapter in Pedro's storied career.

    The most important instrument Pedro has remaining in his toolbox is his brain and it was that which carried him through rather than a reversion to what he once was. That Pedro is gone, never to return regardless of the moment. 

• Dodgers 2-Phillies 1:

    During game 1, I kiddingly wondered on Twitter if Chase Utley had somehow contracted a long-dormant strain of Steve Sax disease still lurking around Dodger Stadium, thus making him unable to make a clean throw to first base. His throws were horribly out-of-whack even as they didn't cost the Phillies. Yesterday though, the wild throw on Russell Martin's double play grounder allowed the Dodgers to tie the score----then the bullpen parade began.

    Phillies manager Charlie Manuel was questioned (rightfully) for starting Pedro; but the idea that he should've left Pedro in was nonsense. What cost the Phillies was the Utley error and the absence of J.C. Romero.

    I'd be very concerned about Utley's throwing; he looks like there's something physically wrong with him that hasn't been disclosed; and the Phillies had better hope it's something physical, because if it's mental, they've got a big problem that's not likely to go away with a snap of the fingers.

    As for the phalanx of relievers that entered and exited the game, Romero's injury created a chain reaction that has sent J.A. Happ and Joe Blanton to the bullpen and forced the club to use Pedro as a starter. They got away with using Pedro, but Happ literally looked petrified out on the mound and ready to cry in the dugout after he walked in the lead run. Romero was imperative to the Phillies success in 2007 and 2008 and they need him. But he's not there.

    I've been waiting for the Phillies bullpen to implode and it finally happened in game 2. They had the Dodgers down and could've plunged the knife into their bellies with a win; instead, they let them off the deck. It's going to cost them. 

    Pedro will be needed for another start if the series goes on for an extended period and it would be asking a lot for him to again hold the Dodgers down to the degree he did yesterday. The series is tied, but there are many questions hovering around the Phillies and they may not have an answer for them. They have issues to address. Lee must be as dominant against the Dodgers as he was against the Rockies, because if they lose game 3, the Phillies are in trouble. Big trouble. 

• Yankees 4-Angels 1:

    C.C. Sabathia was dominating over the Angels in game 1, but this game was the first salvo in what promises to be a long, drawn out war. 

    While the Angels played shabby defense and didn't hit, they accomplished one goal of making Sabathia work to the tune of 113 pitches. Keeping the game close enough that Yankees manager Joe Girardi couldn't yank Sabathia to get him some extra rest before his presumed game 4 start.

    Forcing Sabathia to exert himself could pay similar dividends to working the body in a boxing match. The punishment isn't as prominent as a cut of swollen eye, but in a way, it's worse. It doesn't seem like much at first as the ribs and kidneys are worked endlessly, but as the stress of withstanding the assault takes its toll on the legs, the rest of the body goes shortly thereafter. It may not be visible now; it might not even manifest itself in game 4; but if this series gets to game 7, the Angels strategy of working the Yankees short starting rotation----along with their own depth----could turn things in their favor late in the series.

    The Yankees basically held serve in the opening game. Historically, A.J. Burnett has been mediocre----at best----against the Angels and despite his excellence in the ALDS against the Twins, he's so flighty that no one can know what they're going to get from him until they're in the midst of getting it. That could be a no-hitter, eight walks or three homers. No one knows. 

    I wouldn't be surprised, nor all that concerned if I were the Angels and they lost tonight as well. If they head back to Anaheim down 0-2, I'd still like their chances of winning two games out there and getting the series back to New York. If that happens, the Yankees pitching could be sufficiently weakened to turn the tide for the Angels to take the series. The longer it goes, the greater the advantage to the Angels.

    This series is going the distance.

    Watch.

• Viewer Mail 10.17.2009:

Jeff at Red State Blue State writes:

"There's reason to be afraid and it's justified because the Yankees are going to lose."

Believe that. I do.

As for Papelbon... he would fit right in on the Northside with the large faction of loudmouth whiny a-holes who permeate the not-so-friendly confines. Do it, Theo. Do it.

    I find it fascinating how one game turned the Yankee fans into such a bastion of confidence that the crowing is so loud as it is. These are the Angels, not the Twins. They're resilient and completely unflappable in the grand scheme of things. You'll start hearing talk of a sweep as the day wears on. They're in for a rude awakening.

    With Jonathan Papelbon, the Cubs don't have much to trade to get him; Theo Epstein isn't going to give the guy away. Two interesting landing spots I hadn't mentioned (and both are clubs that have the prospects and more to get him) are the Marlins and Braves. Both could use an established closer of Papelbon's quality. The Braves seem intent on moving forward with Mike Gonzalez and Rafael Soriano, which is a mistake. The Marlins on the other hand, are in on everything and with Papelbon arbitration eligible and a free agent after 2011, he'd fit right into the way they do business. If they'd had a money closer this year, they'd have made the playoffs.

Kyle Johnson writes:

I like your prediction of Angels in seven. However, I disagree in regards to  Sabathia being a horse in this series. I believe that he (along with a Vladimir Guerrero revival) will be the main reason of the Yankess fall this October. With a bunch of slap hitting right handed bats in the Angel offense, Sabathia's numbers against this team, and his career post season numbers I honestly don't believe he is the 3 game horse everyone is portraying him to be.
Love your blog and will continue reading it.

    Sabathia looked great last night, but this is going to be a war of attrition and, as strange as it sounds given their resources, the Yankees left themselves horribly short in the starting rotation and put themselves in this position. Would any and every Yankee fan feel better if they'd made an expensive but necessary move for the likes of Bronson Arroyo for a potential game 4 start? I would if I were them. As the series drags on, Sabathia's going to run out of gas in game 7. Thanks for the support.

• These men shop at the same store----and the store should be condemned: 
  

    Dunno how many people remember WKRP in Cincinnati or sales manager Herb Tarlek and his clownish polyester suits, but I wrote a note to TBS sideline reporter Craig Sager on Twitter yesterday that said the following:

Hey Craig Sager, Herb Tarlek called: he wants his polyester suits back.

    Judge for yourself. 

    This, my friends, is a fashion don't in any venue. Even with Halloween rapidly approaching.

• A disaster waiting to happen:

    When decisions are made based on factors aside from on-field concerns, it's a recipe for disaster. The baffling decision by the Phillies to start Pedro Martinez in game 2 of the NLCS at Dodger Stadium appears to have outside influences all over it and the Phillies are going to pay for it by letting the Dodgers get on a roll in the series.

    Pedro Martinez is one of the best pitchers in the history of baseball. There's no debating that. Considering the era in which he played and the ridiculous numbers he posted, there's an argument for him being the best ever, period. There's even a viable argument for what the Phillies are trying to do. They're keeping Pedro in as secure a cocoon as possible; in a big ballpark; with a high mound; and weather warm enough that him getting loose won't be as large a factor as it would be in the chill of Philadelphia. In addition to that, I'm a firm believer in fading veterans who have known greatness being able to regain that for a brief moment in the large spotlight.

    This phenomenon has been exemplified in certain career renaissances enjoyed by warriors such as Orel Hershiser, Wayne Gretzky and Evander Holyfield. People who were widely believed to be finished, but regained their greatness if only for one night. The gravity of the moment can do wondrous things----to a point. But does Pedro have enough left in the tank to get past his physical limitations that are becoming more and more obvious with each passing day? 

    For some unfathomable reason, Pedro was allowed by Phillies manager Charlie Manuel to throw 130 and 119 pitches in consecutive starts as if it was the young and spry 1999 Pedro rather than the injury-riddled and fading 2009 Pedro. He looked shaky in his final two starts of the season and hasn't pitched competitively in three weeks. Are they really expecting him to have his command? To suddenly re-emerge and appear as 1999 Pedro like Lazarus?

    Is there a factor of: "Well, Pedro's on the roster and we have to use him" in play here? Wouldn't the team be better off starting Joe Blanton instead of Pedro? I would've trusted J.A. Happ (despite his wobbly playoff appearances so far); or a patched together start (of which Pedro could've been a part) using Brett Myers (inexplicably off the playoff roster in favor of the do-nothing Eric Bruntlett); or figuring something else out. Their bullpen, already beleaguered after game 1, could be ravaged beyond repair after tonight so that it's a problem for the rest of the series, undone by a short Pedro outing. 

    The Phillies could put a chokehold in the series tonight with a win, but they won't be able to do it if the Dodgers jump out with a crooked number in the first two innings. They're making a decision to let the Dodgers back into the series and if they lose the whole thing, they'll look back on it as their biggest gaffe in sifting through the wreckage of a lost season and lost opportunity to win back-to-back World Series. It'll all come down to this one act of stupidity and sentimentality and it's a mistake.

• Is Jonathan Papelbon on the market?

    I can understand the Red Sox frustration with Jonathan Papelbon. He's got a big mouth; he's far too impressed with himself; and he's on the verge of costing them big money if they intend to keep him. That said, he's a proven commodity; he's able to handle the big stage; and his attitude is part of his "thing" that makes him a top closer. Trading him is a big risk no matter who they have coming back and if it were me, I'd explore it and only pull the trigger if someone knocked me over with an offer.

    Under Theo Epstein the Red Sox have historically diminished the value of the closer. From the ridiculous attempt at the bullpen-by-committee in 2003 (it was that, not Grady Little, which cost them the pennant that year); to the attempts to mold journeymen and youngsters who had neither the ability nor aptitude to do the job, they've repeated this process over and over and again, then retreated to finding someone who could actually do the job, first with Keith Foulke (they won a World Series) and with Papelbon (another World Series).

    Even with Papelbon's meltdown in game 3 of the ALDS, he's not completely responsible for what happened against the Angels. Had manager Terry Francona not ordered his closer to walk Torii Hunter to pitch to Vladimir Guerrero, the Red Sox would at least have survived to game 4. They might've lost anyway, but it wouldn't have shined the spotlight on Papelbon as it has.

    As smart and savvy as the Red Sox front office has been in the past six years, they still cling to that tenet of not overpaying for a closer, but they're missing the fact that a closer who can handle the job mentally is more important than money and stuff. Look at Huston Street; look at Brad Lidge. Do the Red Sox want to venture into the unknown again when they have someone who's gotten the job done again and again? And I'm here to tell you that having watched Billy Wagner with the Mets for three years, he is not the guy you want on the mound at Yankee Stadium with a 1-run lead in the bottom of the ninth inning.

    If they want to again try to use young closer such as Daniel Bard as some form of a transition, then fine. He's got such an overpowering arm that he'd absolutely be able to rack up the saves during the season and the club wouldn't miss much of a beat; but will he be able to get the outs in the playoffs? With Papelbon, they'll know he can do that. The idea that they've lost in the playoffs the last two years anyway with Papelbon is somewhat specious; Papelbon is not the reason they lost to the Rays last year and the Angels this year. The Red Sox season is no longer defined by anything that happens from April to September, but by what happens in October. Are they willing to roll the dice again of having a mental weakling pitching the ninth inning? 

    The market for Papelbon would be strong. The Tigers, Mariners, Cubs and Rockies would all have major interest in the obnoxious righty and the Red Sox would get some prime talent back for him, but they're better consider all the factors before making such a move because it could wreck their season in 2010 and beyond.

• Viewer Mail 10.116.2009:

Cat writes RE my pick of Dodgers in Six:

I like your prediction of the Dodgers over the Phillies. Your comments are right on.

    I love comments from new people, especially when they agree with me wholeheartedly. 

Jeff at Red State Blue State writes:

Leave the gun. Take the cannolis.

    The main criteria to integration and advancement in my Family is following orders, maintaining loyalty and being smart. Jeff meets these criteria with aplomb. The Prince of New York steers this ship. Right....or....wrong.

Gabriel writes RE my pick of Angels in Seven over the Yankees:

Hope you're right.

    The key with the Angels is that they're fearless against the Yankees and they know they can beat them. If you polled the Yankees silently under sodium pentothal, to a man they'd probably tell you that they wanted nothing to do with the Angels. But here they are and they've got to deal with it.

Peter writes two comments, one on Yankees-Angels; the other on Billy Wagner:

Will definitely be a battle to watch...especially if CC melts down.

Wagner retire, yeah right, just another attempt to seek the spotlight.
 

    Sabathia won't be the problem. It's going to come down to Joe Girardi, A.J. Burnett and Andy Pettitte. This is a big issue for the Yankees. A big issue. 

    Billy Wagner puts forth this persona as a simple country guy who speaks his mind without pretense and does what he feels is right. That may or may not be accurate, but he's also been very slick and calculating at using his "honesty" as a negotiating ploy. He did not go through Tommy John surgery to pitch for a month and retire. He's coming back. Believe me. 

Jane Heller at Confessions of a She-Fan writes RE the Yankees:

I guess you're reversing yourself then. Or did you not pick the Yankees to win the WS?

    Is that a reversal or reassessment?

    Most, if not all, self-anointed "experts" would've looked at their pre-season picks, examined all the aspects of a possible (though necessary) alteration based on current circumstances and stayed with their original pick to be able to stand up and crow about having been "right". The thought flashed through my mind in sheer terms of self-interest, but I can't do that and maintain credibility within myself. 

    The truth is I did pick the Yankees to win the World Series in my book. That said, it was a different Yankee team that I expected to be playing in the ALCS (against the Red Sox in that case); that Yankee team had what is commonly referred to as a "fourth starter". This one doesn't. That team wasn't going against an Angels club on a mission to turn a tragedy into a historic tribute to a fallen teammate; and that team wasn't dealing with an Angels club that----more than anyone else in baseball----is willing to look at the "Yankee aura" and snarl rather than cower.

    If I was a Yankee fan, the shortness of starting pitching would concern me; the Joe Girardi strategies of "doing stuff" and overmanaging for the sake of it would send me into a frenzy of self-doubt; and that it's the Angels coming to town would petrify me.

    This was not an about face on an opinion based on convenience; it's cold-blooded reality. I sense an underlying and palpable fear of the Angels amongst the Yankee faithful (and some have privately told me as much). There's reason to be afraid and it's justified because the Yankees are going to lose.

• ALCS Preview:

Los Angeles Angels (97-65; 1st place, American League West; defeated Boston Red Sox 3 games to 0 in ALDS) vs New York Yankees (103-59; first place, American League East; defeated Minnesota Twins 3 games to 0 in ALDS)

Keys for the Angels: Patience in all aspects; get their starting pitchers deep into the game; no mistakes; Vladimir Guerrero.

    The Angels have been a pedal to the metal, go-go-go team for the entirety of manager Mike Scioscia's tenure. Occasionally that's been a detriment as their aggressiveness runs them out of innings at inopportune times and sabotages potential big innings. This season though, they've removed their foot from the gas just enough to increase their on base percentage to number three in the league from eleventh in 2008----Bobby Abreu's presence has had a great impact on the way the whole team (except Vladimir Guerrero) approaches their at bats.

    For the Angels to continue their run, they're going to have to maintain that controlled aggressiveness and get the Yankees starters to raise their pitch counts to the point where tough decisions are going to need to be made in the middle innings. With the Yankees leaning toward using a three-man rotation, the individual games aren't going to be the only thing on their manager Joe Girardi's mind if his starters are up around 100 pitches. The longer the series goes, the better chance the Angels have to cash in on exhaustion and the Yankees top-heavy starting rotation.

    One thing the Angels do not want to do is get into a bullpen battle with the Yankees. Brian Fuentes has been pitching well lately, but with a 1-run lead and the Yankees bashers (that would be almost the entire lineup) coming to the plate, I wouldn't feel safe with Fuentes on the mound; nor any of the other Angels relievers. Getting the starters deep into the games if they're close, or getting a comfortable lead would advantage the Angels greatly.

    The Twins gave the Yankees a struggle and should have won game 2. Clearly they were overmatched, but an overmatched team has to play perfect baseball when dealing with a superior club such as the Yankees. The baserunning gaffes; failure to cash in on big opportunities to score; and, especially, Joe Nathan's meltdown in game 2 (he looked petrified) doomed the Twins to a three game sweep. The Angels can hang with the Yankees in every aspect of the game aside from the closer and have an advantage in the depth of their starting rotation. That said, they can't give away runs in the field, at the plate, on the mound or running the bases.

    Vladimir Guerrero is not the hitter he once was, but he seems to save his best for the big stage and the biggest stage of all is in New York against the Yankees. The Red Sox made the ridiculous mistake of challenging Guerrero in game 3 by walking Torii Hunter to load the bases in front of him----he made them pay. If the Yankees think that because Guerrero is no longer the one-man-gang he once was it's reason to challenge him and take him lightly, they're going to rue the day they came to that conclusion just as the Red Sox surely are right now. There will be at least one game that will come down to Guerrero at the plate in a big spot and whether or not he delivers will be a decisive factor in the series.

Keys for the Yankees: keep their starting pitchers' pitch counts down; score, score, score; put the game in the hands of Mariano Rivera; mitigate Joe Girardi's overmanaging. 

    If they do go with a three-man rotation (and depending on how things go, they might not have a choice), the Yankees are going to have to keep an eye on the pitch counts of C.C. Sabathia, A.J. Burnett and Andy Pettitte. Sabathia most of all will be at his best and able to handle the extra work; when he's a little bit tired his command is better; weariness will prevent him being as amped up for his playoff starts as he's been in the past. Burnett and Pettitte are both major concerns on short rest. Who knows what's going to happen with the flighty Burnett? And Pettitte isn't young anymore----he can be counted on to gut his way through----at least until he hits a physical nadir.

    Scoring is the best antidote for the Yankees questions on the mound. If they can get a big lead, they can pull their starters and hand the game over to the bullpen by the sixth or seventh inning and not really worry about pitch counts or the subsequent games to the degree they will if the games turn into a long wrestling match. With the way Alex Rodriguez has been bashing, he could wreck several games all by himself. That Yankees lineup is hellish and they don't beat themselves. Putting up runs will solve most, if not all, of their other issues.

    Mariano Rivera has been the Yankees most devastating and important weapon for the playoffs since 1996. Not only does he have the fearlessness to handle any and all circumstances, but his entrance into the game almost always signals the end of the proceedings. The Angels are more resistant than other clubs to the intimidation of Rivera, but if it's a close or tie game late, Fuentes is no match for the greatness that is Rivera.

      Girardi did not manage well in the ALDS against the Twins. He fiddled unnecessarily with his relievers for right-lefty matchups when it wasn't appropriate; he yanked Sabathia too early in game 1 in a decision that could've been disastrous; and he seems to be of the "do stuff" school of managers. If he starts playing that game of messing about strategically just because some invisible book says to do so, it could cost the Yankees dearly later in the games and in the series. Girardi's inexperience is a major problem in a chess match with Scioscia.

What will happen:

    The Angels are not afraid of the Yankees.

    The Angels are not intimidated by the Yankees.

    They've blasted them out of the playoffs twice before when they were heavy underdogs because they've taken the Yankees best shots and, rather than cower as everyone else seems to do, they've shoved them right back----harder.

    On paper, this matchup is relatively even. The Angels starting pitching will be proven to be equal to the Yankees and their depth will turn the series in their favor. Sabathia is better off with the extra work, but what happens if it's the sixth inning of game 1 and the Angels have pushed his pitch count up to 100 with the score tied? Will Girardi be thinking ahead to games 4 and 7 if he has a decision to make? As impressive as the power arms of Joba Chamberlain and Phil Hughes are coming out of the pen, the Angels aren't ones to be frightened of anything after this trying season, least of all a couple of kids who've been shown to be all-too-human in recent days.

    Girardi's inexperience and penchant for making needless maneuvers because he's thinking too much will doom the Yankees in at least two of the games. Because of their short starting pitching, if the series is close heading into game 4, the Yankees have almost no choice in using a three-man rotation. Burnett won't be able to handle the work; Pettitte isn't a kid anymore. Brian Cashman's attempts to regulate Joba Chamberlain's innings have relegated the youngster to the bullpen in what would've been a game 4 start had he been allowed to gain some rhythm as a starter during the season rather than having been babied like some breakable artifact.

    Guerrero is impossible to pitch around and he's going to enjoy a renaissance in this series. The Angels newfound control at the plate and on the bases will make them resistant to the same screw-ups that undid the Twins. The Yankees never quit and are always in any game despite a deficit because of their awesome power; but the Angels never quit either. Their intestinal fortitude in what looked like a lost season after the death of Nick Adenhart has become an inspiration. They can smell a championship and are on a mission.

    The Yankees failure to adequately deploy their troops will be lamented as their season ends sooner than anyone expected. The worship they're receiving by those drunk by the impressive second half and domination in the ALDS will be left wondering how such a promising season went up in smoke. Rather than being awash in champagne and a planned trip down the Canyon of Heroes in a month's time, the new Stadium's inaugural season will end in tears and legitimate questions as to the managerial skills of Girardi and the arrogance of Cashman in sticking to his flawed and self-indulgent blueprint.

    The Angels dumped the Red Sox.

    And the Yankees are next to fall.

    The Angels are taking them out. 

PREDICTION: ANGELS IN SEVEN

ALCS MVP: JOHN LACKEY

• NLCS Preview:

Philadelphia Phillies (93-69; 1st place, NL East, defeated Colorado Rockies 3 games to 1 in NLDS) vs Los Angeles Dodgers (95-67; 1st place, NL West, defeated St. Louis Cardinals 3 games to 0 in NLDS)

Keys for the Phillies: starting pitching; the bullpen; score, score, score; control Manny Ramirez.

    The Phillies never-say-die attitude saved them from a return trip to Philadelphia and (what I think) would've been a game 5 loss as they scored 3 runs in the top of the ninth inning of game 4 off of Huston Street to dispatch the Rockies. This attitude also glossed over the glaring issues in the Phillies bullpen that remain despite Brad Lidge saving the final two wins in the NLDS. Cole Hamels is starting the first game of the NLCS. Although he ostensibly left game 2 of the Rockies series to be with his wife who'd gone into labor, Hamels didn't pitch particularly well before the blessed event. Hamels has been up-and-down all season; if the Phillies are going to win this series, they're going to need the Hamels from 2008 and not the inconsistent pitcher he's been for all of 2009.

    The absence of J.C. Romero and possible injury to Scott Eyre, who'd become more than a lefty specialist, will require Antonio Bastardo to deal with the looming presence of Jim Thome off the bench for the Dodgers. At least one game could hinge on his ability to do it or not. 

    In the NLDS, Cliff Lee regained the brilliance he displayed upon his arrival in Philly. Given the shaky Hamels and the questions surrounding the other starters available to the Phillies (I'd go with Joe Blanton as the third starter, J.A. Happ fourth), Lee must maintain that level of work against the Dodgers.

    Even with Lidge getting the job done, he's still constantly teetering on the verge of another meltdown both mentally and in performance. His stuff didn't look much better against the Rockies than it did for his horrendous regular season and he's not going to get away with that if he's called on to retire Manny Ramirez late with runners on base.

    The Phillies lineup is hell. Not only can they hit the ball out of the park at any time, but they're patient; they hit in the clutch; they execute fundamentally; and they can run. With the Dodgers starting rotation as short as it is and the questions surrounding the Phillies pitching, they'd better score early and often against the likes of Randy Wolf and young Clayton Kershaw; if the games are close late or their offense goes into a collective slump, they're going to lose.

    Andre Ethier and Rafael Furcal led the Dodgers past the Cardinals, but everything in this series will come down to Manny Ramirez. The Phillies have to mitigate Manny----or at least control him. One game-wrecker from Manny could turn the series for the Dodgers.

Keys for the Dodgers: the bullpen; keep the Phillies offense down; Manny.

    The Dodgers starting pitching is known to be a question, but it's not going to matter as long as they're not allowing crooked numbers in the early innings. If the likes of Wolf, Kershaw and Vicente Padilla (they haven't announced any of their game starters yet) wobble, Torre's modus operandi in the playoffs is to yank his starters at the first sign of trouble no matter the inning; with a deep and diverse bullpen, he won't hesitate to make moves with a quick hook.

    The Dodgers hold a massive advantage over the Phillies if the games are close late. With Hong-Chih Kuo, George Sherrill and Jonathan Broxton, the Dodgers can shut the game down after the sixth inning and wait for the Phillies bullpen to implode. If the Dodgers bullpen does their job, they're tough to beat.

    As intimidating as the Phillies offense is, the Dodgers' offense isn't too shabby in their own right. They got through the Cardinals with little contribution from Manny; Matt Kemp and Casey Blake. Furcal was on fire throughout the first round and set the tone; and Ethier was sublime. Manny has had a trying year with the PED suspension and will be on a mission in this NLCS to regain his rep. There's not one pitcher in baseball that can contain a motivated Manny Ramirez. If Manny has a game-breaking game or even a series, the Dodgers are unstoppable.

    Torre and coach Larry Bowa are going to hammer home the point that the Dodgers hitters must be patient with the Phillies starters, if for no other reason than to get them out of the game or wear them down for later in the series. If the Dodgers are able to get Hamels and Lee out of the games early and dig into the Phillies soft bullpen, there's not much the Phillies can do about it other than shut their eyes and pray. The Phillies will be faced with a choice if the pitch counts of their top two starters are high: leave them in the game and worry about the now, or trust their relievers. The Dodgers can't let Lee have his way with them as he did the Rockies. If the Dodgers jump on Hamels and Lee and the Phillies have to rely on the back of their rotation, they're in deep, deep trouble.

What will happen:

    Hamels's inconsistency for 2009 will be counteracted by his penchant for pitching well in big games, but he's going to give up runs. The Dodgers starting pitching isn't impressive, but the bullpen will be deployed liberally by Torre. The Phillies are going to score, but so are the Dodgers. The games are going to come down to bullpen battles. The absences of Romero and possibly Eyre are going to cost the Phillies at least one game and possibly two. Lidge is a nightmare waiting to happen. Most importantly, Manny is set to explode.

    With their bullpen as varied as it is----and playoff series come down to bullpens----Torre is going to have an advantage that Phillies manager Charlie Manuel won't. The Dodgers woke up at the right time in the NLDS after a drunken stumble down the stretch of the regular season.

    The Phillies were lucky against the Rockies in two respects: the cold weather allowed them to avoid using Pedro Martinez in game 3 (he would've gotten shelled); and they were able to squeak past their own bullpen issues because of Street's gack jobs. They won't be that lucky against the Dodgers.

    Broxton has a tendency to melt down occasionally, but he's far more trustworthy than anything the Phillies have. The Dodgers are going to hang with the Phillies offensively and a battle of the bullpens will allow them to avenge last year's loss and win the pennant.

PREDICTION: DODGERS IN SIX.

NLCS MVP: MANNY RAMIREZ

• Billy Wagner talks retirement:

    Yah.

    Right.

    More than anything else, Wagner's an emotional guy and was probably upset over the Red Sox loss; and don't discount a negotiating ploy with the Red Sox because he doesn't want them to offer him arbitration lowering the number of options he has as a free agent. 

    I have a hard time believing the speculation that the Red Sox would consider trading Jonathan Papelbon to keep Wagner as their closer. Even with the blown save in game 3 of the ALDS against the Angels, Papelbon has been completely reliable----especially when it's counted. Having watched and suffered through several instances of Wagner's penchant for bullpen arson while he was with the Mets, I can tell the Red Sox here and now that they do not want to go down that road. I don't think that the Red Sox are going to offer arbitration to Wagner and pay a set-up man upwards of $10 million next year.

    The draft compensation system is explained here if anyone's confused. Suffice it to say that Wagner doesn't want the Red Sox to offer him arbitration and they won't do it.

    There are a few places for Wagner to go where he'll get a chance to close. It's said he wants to be close to his Virginia home which would make Washington a good spot; other options are Atlanta, his former home of Houston and, where I think he'll wind up, Florida with the Marlins on a 1-year deal. 

    I'll be stunned if he retires. Did he go through the Tommy John surgery and rehab to return for one month and then hang it up? No way.

• Giants re-sign GM Brian Sabean and manager Bruce Bochy to 2-year extensions:

    Brian Sabean has been ridiculed for signings like Barry Zito and that atrocious trade for A.J. Pierzynski in which he surrendered Francisco Liriano, Joe Nathan and Boof Bonser, but for the most part he's been a stabilizing force for the Giants. Dealing with the Barry Bonds fiasco for all those years and building around the temperamental and controversial star showed Sabean's skill at walking the line in running a club. Add in that they've been rebuilt very quickly to the verge of legitimate contention with a loaded farm system, and he deserved the contract.

    With his grumbly way of talking; thick black mustache reminiscent of grainy, turn-of-the-20th-century team photos; and gruff but soft-hearted old-school manner, Bruce Bochy is one of the best-liked and most respected baseball men and overall people in the game. It was a no-brainer to keep him as well. If the Giants get a power bat, they're just about ready to take the step into the conversation with the elite teams in baseball and they're smart to keep their management team intact.

• The designated closer is hit-or-miss:

    How many closers in baseball are absolutely trustworthy to hold a lead?

    One.

    Mariano Rivera.

    How many closers are mostly trustworthy to hold a lead (despite recent events)?

    One.

    Jonathan Papelbon.

    The majority of their trustworthiness comes from playoff performances. Rivera is, of course, beyond reproach; Papelbon has gotten the job done in the big spots almost every time aside for last Sunday and manager Terry Francona was as much at fault for his screw-up in walking Torii Hunter to pitch to Vladimir Guerrero as Papelbon was for everything else. 

    It's not that Huston Street of the Colorado Rockies has immediately become the poster-child for faltering closers; it's that the designated "stopper" has entered so many games in recent years and blown the whole thing up when his whole persona as the "ace" out of the bullpen should preclude such things from happening. The best guy is the best guy for a reason. It's only in the role of closer that you see journeymen the likes of Ryan Franklin and David Aardsma recording the misleading "save" stat.

    Even the very good closers or recent years like Brad Lidge, Billy Wagner and Francisco Rodriguez have made it a habit of getting themselves into trouble only to wriggle out of it like Houdini from a locked box. Many times they don't extricate themselves from their self-made messes. And more often, those meltdowns occur when they're most important and/or memorable. 

    When you have second-tier pitchers such as Street entering the game in the most important inning and he continually gacks up wins, it's time to go back to the drawing board for some courageous organization to make required changes.

    Tony La Russa is blamed for creating the so-called "one-inning closer" with Dennis Eckersley, but what people fail to acknowledge or understand is that prior to hooking up with Eckersley, La Russa always had two or three pitchers he'd use to close games and would use them for multiple innings; with Eckersley, the decision was one based on effectiveness. Eckersley was more effective when his innings were regulated and relegated to one; that's how La Russa used him. It was based on cold, calculated reality. It was only the Jeff Torborgs of the world who started following La Russa's blueprint to the letter not because it was best for the club, but because it was easier to explain to the press and shield oneself from criticism by saying, "that's his role; that's his job". In other words, "Blah, blah, blah; don't criticize me."   

    While most teams don't have a Rivera in whose hands to put any and every game, they do have pitchers to record outs. Teams and managers have tried to take differing routes to finishing their games in recent memory with good intentions and misplaced personnel.

    In his final days with the Athletics, La Russa realized that his club had little chance to compete due to the shoddy construction of the roster (nice work by Sandy Alderson there); in his desperation, he tried a strategy that he and longtime friend Jim Leyland had kicked around for years of putting numbers on the backburner and implementing his entire pitching staff as a unit designed to win games. What he did was have designated starters pitch three or so innings, then make a change to the designated middle relievers and so on like something of a mini-rotation with no designated starters/middle-relievers/set-up men/closers. It didn't work because the pitchers he was using weren't any good, but it was an idea that shouldn't be dismissed out-of-hand and could be fine-tuned to work.

    The Red Sox made a great show of not having a designated "closer" in 2003, instead choosing to use whichever pitcher made the most sense against the scheduled batters. This failed miserably because the pitchers the Red Sox used were journeymen, youngsters and fringe big leaguers who couldn't handle the mental stress of the job and didn't have the stuff to blast through it. More so than Grady Little's decision to leave Pedro Martinez in to pitch in game 7 of that year's ALCS, it was the failed closer-by-committee that cost the Red Sox a World Series appearance that year. Their shoddy bullpen cost them 23 games they should've won. Had they won even a third of those games, they would've won the AL East and perhaps avoided the Yankees entirely. Little was a convenient scapegoat for what was an organizational decision of arrogance and adherence to dogmatic, out-of-context sabermetrics.

    What would be wrong with coming up with a viable alternative? Why not have a "reliever rotation" based on the opponent and the stuff of the starter. Let's say hypothetically that the Tigers are starting Justin Verlander with his 100-mph fastball; and the decision is predetermined to use, say, Nate Robertson if and when Verlander tires. Robertson would treat the game as a scheduled appearance as if he was a starter; the contrast of power stuff from the right side of Verlander and the lefty Robertson (whose stuff is better suited to go one time through the lineup anyway) might be more effective than the current system of the seventh and eighth inning set-up men and the closer. How much worse would that be than Brandon Lyon and Fernando Rodney? 

    It would take talent recognition; cold analysis; an ability to sell the idea to the players on the idea; to ignore naysayers on talk radio, in the media and fans; and someone with the sheer balls to do something radically different. Given the way "closers" have done nothing more than close out games for their own team----by blowing the games----how much worse could things get after the past week? Not very much.

• Viewer Mail 10.13.2009:

Jane Heller at Confessions of a She-Fan writes:

Yup. Jeter is a genius. I guess he's what people always mean by "intangibles," except that his talent is tangible. He's always at the right place at the right time and executes.


You really do want Valentine managing somewhere, don't you.

    Nothing more needs to be said about Derek Jeter. Maybe the Mets should arrange an internship for Jose Reyes to hang with Jeter and learn how to comport himself. I'm serious about that.

   As for Bobby Valentine, I want him in one uniform----that of the New York Mets. It's really starting to appear as if he's not going to be on a big league field to start 2010. The perception will be that he's "vulturing" waiting for a big job worthy of Valentine's high opinion of himself, but that's not his problem. The newest rumor is that the Japanese Yokohoma Bay Stars are pursuing him heavily and lucratively----MLB Fan House Story. 

    Valentine likes attention; he likes the idol-worship he receives in Japan; and he loves money. Plus, he's not going to walk into a situation in MLB where he's got no chance to win and no sway with the organization. He wants the Mets job; and if he sits out next year or goes back to Japan, chances are it'll be open for him.

Jeff at Red State Blue State writes:

As a Captain myself, I second your assessment of Derek Jeter. One of my favorite things about Jeter (and as an anti-Yankees fan this sorta hurts to say) is watching him play the infield. He almost always uses two hands; and say what you want about his speed, he finds a way to get to the ball and field it the way one is supposed to. It's a thing of beauty as his grace makes difficult plays seem effortless.

    It's amazing how Jeter has been able to cultivate a niche where no one can say anything negative about him and mean it. This is how universally respected he is for the way he conducts himself and he backs it up in the field. He's a pleasure to watch whether you hate the Yankees or not. That might be his greatest accomplishment of all.

    Speaking of Jeff, in handling a stunning show in disregard for my power by one (all-too-frequent to the point of being disturbing) inhabitant of the entity known as Twitter, he wrote the following regarding yours truly:

All I know is his dark side is dark. Dude shoots lightning from fingers.

    You Goddamn well better believe it!   

• Certain things can't be taught:

    It takes a natural intuitive skill to be a true genius and it's something can't be taught. There are those that believe that anyone can be trained to do anything under the proper instruction, but it's grace under fire when champions and legends are born. Being the strongest, fastest or most physically gifted has little to do with knowing what one's doing and not even having to stop and think about it. 

    Did Joe Montana have the best arm in the history of the NFL? It's not even close. Of course not.

    Was Wayne Gretzky an intimidating force of nature on the ice who could bull his way through anyone and everything? No way.

    Did John McEnroe have the work ethic, power and foot speed to bludgeon his opponents into submission? Please.

    What these three athletes had in common was a depth of perception that let them see things happening before they happened; to anticipate every conceivable possibility like a calculator, know the oncoming sequence of events and react while others would've been standing around agape. Montana had the calm under fire; Gretzky had the presence of mind to be where he was supposed to be at the right moment; McEnroe's magical hands overcame any flaws----personality or otherwise. 

    Last night, as if he needed anything else to add to his well-earned reputation as the smartest player in baseball, Derek Jeter placed his name in that pantheon if it wasn't there already. 

    Already acknowledged as the most respected and well-regarded player in the game, Jeter's presence of mind to know the situation and what he needed to do was again hammered home in a similar fashion as with "the flip" in the 2001 ALDS vs the Athletics that saved the Yankees season. Last night, in the bottom of the eighth inning and the Yankees holding a 2-1 lead, Jeter made a play that not three players in baseball would've had the presence of mind, nor the skills, to pull off. 

    Nick Punto led off the inning with a double off of Phil Hughes; Denard Span grounded a ball up the middle upon which Jeter knew he'd have no play on the speedy Span; rather than make an ill-advised throw to first (as many shortstops would've done); or "eat it" without a play (as the rest of the game's shortstops would've done), Jeter had the wherewithal to spin and throw home; Punto had rounded third too far and catcher Jorge Posada fired to Alex Rodriguez to nail Punto and end the threat. It was the last and probably worst in the multitude of baserunning gaffes that doomed the Twins and it all stemmed from one player----Jeter----who automatically knew what to do. 

    Off the top of my head, there aren't many players----past and present----that would have the intelligence to make that play. Albert Pujols maybe? Cal Ripken? Keith Hernandez? Aside from that, almost every other player would've been, at best, conservative and held the ball. It's a quiet cool that exemplifies everything Jeter is. He's not the fastest player; he's not the most talented; but he is the smartest and he's the Yankees captain for a reason. This goes back further than his heroics during his rookie year of 1996; back past his upbringing----he just knows----and that's why he's a winner and a legend. It's our pleasure to be able to watch his mind work.

• The Twins mistakes only delayed the inevitable:

    When a club is as overmatched on paper as the Twins were in this series, they had to be perfect; and if they were perfect, they would've lost anyway. The repeated baserunning mistakes and failure to execute plays that they could do in their sleep sent the Twins home and closed the Metrodome far earlier than they'd hoped, but the fact is that even with the leads they held and blew, no one could've felt safe against that Yankees lineup with a one and two run lead.

    The Twins showed their usual heart, but not their adherence to the basic principle of not beating themselves. They would've lost anyway, but they could've shaken the Yankees more than they did if they'd played the Twins way, and they didn't.

• Angels 7-Red Sox 6:

    I understand what Terry Francona was doing as he walked Torii Hunter to pitch to Vladmir Guerrero with two out in the ninth inning, a one-run lead and runners on second and third----Hunter has hammered Jonathan Papelbon in his career (3 for 5 with a homer); and Guerrero was 1 for 10 in his career vs the Red Sox closer----but Guerrero, for all of his free swinging, is more of a concern to me to come through in the clutch. Because he rarely strikes out, Guerrero was more likely to put the ball in play or hit one off the Green Monster; Hunter strikes out a lot and is very vulnerable to a power fastball. 

    I would've gone after Hunter; tried to get him to chase out of the strike zone and when I got two strikes, go high and hard with a fastball. That was a better option than what Francona did. It was a mistake.

    Francona is a nice guy and has been a good manager for the Red Sox, but you have to wonder whether the front office might be getting an itchy trigger finger after two straight fruitless Octobers and this botched strategy. They'd flirted heavily with Bobby Valentine before hiring Francona. People don't want to hear this, but Francona does what he's told to do by upper management and was hired: A) to appease Curt Schilling; and B) because Francona wasn't the insolent loose cannon that Grady Little was. He would and has followed orders.

    It wouldn't be fair, but it's not out of the realm of possibility to see the club make a change.

    You heard it here first.

• Phillies 6-Rockies 5:

    I admire guys with balls and it took a pair of balls for Phillies manager Charlie Manuel to leave the game in the hands of Brad Lidge in the ninth inning with a one-run lead. In truth, he didn't have much choice, but it still took a stomach much stronger than mine to place the pot of gold on the Phillies staggered closer. 

    I still think the Rockies are going to come back and win the series.

• Viewer Mail 10.12.2009:

Jane Heller at Confessions of a She-Fan writes:

My threat of a spanking was not carried out because it seemed easier just to ignore your Posada rants. Well, that and the fact that - like your "not one word" thing - it doesn't work over the interwebs.

    Ignoring me does not----nor will it ever----work any better than the "not. one. word." thing over the interwebs. Much like most of the women I encounter, is it possible that Jane "She-Fan" Heller is all talk? I didn't think so, but the lack of execution in carrying out the threat of a spanking is reminiscent of that which bounced the Twins in three straight games. Questions now float in my mind on this matter, and they need to be assuaged.

Jeff at Red State Blue State writes:

The Prince of New York has opened himself up to public spankings from She-Fans? This could be an interesting off season.

As for Holliday... I can tell ya, Cardinal fans want him back. They do. You saw the ovation in Game 3 when he came back home... and unless your name is Gary Templeton, Cardinal fans are very quick to forgive and forget. Believe that. TLR will be back too. If not, expect a full scale riot under the arch.

   Oh captain, my captain, you quite literally have no idea of what's going on in and around this Family; and you, nor anyone else would believe it if I told you. Some things must remain hidden with the Boss. Such is my privilege. Or my burden.

    On another matter, I get a sense of "methinks he doth protest too much" in the belief of a La Russa return to the Cardinals. I'm looking at it with the detachment of pure indifference and I think it's 50-50 that he comes back without concessions written into his contract of how the club will be run; concessions that they won't want to give. Get ready for a skittish couple of months because it they let La Russa nd Duncan go, the Cardinals are going to topple into mediocrity and worse----Albert Pujols or no Albert Pujols.

John Seal writes:

Regardless of his post-trade performance, us A's fans would attest that Matt Holliday is a less than elite player. Besides the unimpressive numbers he posted in Oakland, Holliday frequently seemed lackadaisical and uninterested in what was happening on the field. I don't know any A's fan who wasn't happy to see the back of him, and his post-season performance with the Cards definitely isn't going to help him earn a big payday. I'll predict this much: he'll sign with a second tier team, because the big boys (Yankees, etc) won't be interested in his bloodless playing style.

    The worst thing that happened to Holliday financially was the Rockies deciding to deal him and maximize his remaining value (they made a great deal, props to Dan O'Dowd for that one) and get something for him. Had he stayed in Colorado, there still would've been the question of what he'd be once out of Colorado for 81 games, but less of an ironclad judgment to be made----both numerically and observationally. That he bottomed out in the playoffs will raise more questions as to what he's worth. He might be sitting out until January before the free agency situation shakes itself out. 

    As for which team might get Holliday, the Yankees and Red Sox are going to monitor the situation knowing that he'd fit in well as a background guy rather than "the man"; they're not going to give him the money he thought he was worth. He might even have to pull a Bobby Abreu and settle for a very short-term deal to increase his value, which could be a door back to the Cardinals for a year at least.

    One thing is certain: he cost himself a lot of money in 2009. 

• You didn't miss the Cardinals 2009 post-season, you only blinked:

    On paper the Dodgers three-game sweep of the Cardinals looks like a total whitewash as if the Cardinals walked in and were bounced before they even knew what hit them. In reality, they should've won game 2 if not for a fluky play of Matt Holliday losing the final out of the game in the lights. It happened; there's nothing that can be done about it.

    People will point to the shakiness of Cardinals closer Ryan Franklin and his lack of control, but he'd made the pitches he needed to make to close out game 2 and send the series back to St. Louis even at 1-1, it was a freak thing that cost the club the game. I didn't think the Cardinals were going to win the series anyway (I had Dodgers in 5), so that one game only postponed what I felt was the inevitable anyway.

    Aside from Adam Wainwright, the combination of the Cardinals vaunted starting pitching sprung leaks; and Albert Pujols and Matt Holliday didn't hit. These circumstances caused the Cardinals to be packing to go home rather than packing for the NLCS. Chris Carpenter didn't look right from the beginning in game 1; and the ballsy decision by Dodgers manager Joe Torre to walk Pujols in the first inning of the first game with runners on second and third set the tone. Either Holliday was going to come through right there and then and prove that he was the lineup-bodyguard the Pujols needed, or he wasn't. Holliday looked petrified at the plate and struck out. Things got gradually worse from there. 

    In short, the Cardinals hit a slump and played in bad luck at the wrong time and their season----which held such promise a month ago----is over. Now the questions begin for their future and the answers might not be what the Cardinals players and fans want to hear.

• What happens now with the Cardinals?

    It seemed that the Tony La Russa faction had won the inter-organizational battle between the stat zombies and old-school baseball men with the decision to trade top prospect Brett Wallace to the Athletics for Holliday; and the trade of Chris Perez for Mark DeRosa. The Cardinals were openly discussing their intent to keep Holliday and it seemed fait accompli that La Russa at least----and probably pitching coach Dave Duncan as well----would remain in the Cardinals fold no matter the cost. Now, the entire organization has a lot of questions to answer as to their future.

    More important than anything else is what happens with the free agent manager. Such as they are, the stat zombies in the front office led by Jeff Luhnow might take the fact that they were blasted out of the playoffs as an opportunity to regain their sway. The argument (specious as always) would be that they made the aggressive moves for veteran players and it didn't work, so why allow the manager to demand that he be appeased when it failed anyway. Naturally, they'll conveniently forget the widely held belief (just as silly) that the playoffs are a "crapshoot" because it suits their efforts at regaining power. It's going to be fascinating to see what the club does.

    Having believed that La Russa had "won" the war, I felt there was no chance of him leaving; now I'm not so sure. It would of course be a mistake for the Cardinals to let the best manager of this generation leave because his team faltered at the wrong time, but I can absolutely see both sides going in a different direction. The talk that Reds owner Bob Castellini was intrigued with La Russa and Duncan should not be dismissed out-of-hand. Already employing former Cardinals GM (and longtime La Russa cohort going back to the A's days) Walt Jocketty, it would be a logical move for Castellini to hire La Russa and Duncan. The Reds are on the verge of contention and La Russa and Duncan would at least lead them into the playoff mix immediately.

    Don't be surprised to see La Russa leave; and trust me when I say it would be a disaster for the Cardinals that they'll regret for years to come.

• Whither Matt Holliday?

    Unless the free agent market crashes as it did last season and Matt Holliday is forced to scramble for a contract even close to the Rockies 4-year, $72 million deal he turned down before he was traded to the A's, he won't be back with the Cardinals; and after this odious performance in the NLDS, I'm not sure the Cardinals fans even want him back.

    Much like Carlos Beltran made himself an extra $20-30 million with his playoff magnificence at the plate and in the field for the Astros in 2004, it's conceivable that Holliday cost himself at least that much money and possibly more. It's unfair to take three games and decide that a player isn't worth what was initially thought, but it's more in line with Holliday's abilities to be back in the range of the Rockies offer.

    I do not think Matt Holliday is an elite player.

    He's a good player who wants great player money and we've seen the danger in overpaying for a certain guy because he's perceived to be the "best available". I'm not comparing Holliday with Vernon Wells, but it would be in the same realm if Holliday was overpaid due to panic. He's in for a rude awakening this winter.

• Saner heads prevail in Philadelphia:

    I dunno if it was the cold weather, the postponement or the panic regarding the potential nightmare a Pedro Martinez start would've been in the frigid tundra of Colorado that caused the Phillies to change their minds for game three and give the ball to J.A. Happ, but Phillies fans should breathe a sigh of relief.

    Never mind that the weather would've been more apropos for the Vince Lombardi Packers vs the Tom Landry Cowboys in Green Bay; the fact that Pedro is a mere shell of his former self and is dealing with the ravages of age should've precluded the very idea that he get the start. In the warm weather it takes Pedro a couple of innings to get his blood flowing, his muscles/ligaments loose and his command. Had they put him out there in Colorado in the cold, they might've found themselves five runs down before they had time to get the bullpen hot. No matter what happens, Happ was the right call for game 3 and the postponement saved the Phillies from a huge personnel gaffe.

• Viewer Mail 10.11.2009:

Ted writes RE the Yankees win on Friday:

PAUL, I have seen it all, but last nights' Yankees game was something out of the ordinary. Teixeira will be remembered in the mind of every Yankees fan, and might be enshrined in every Twins fans' mind as well. What a game.

    ARod's homer was actually bigger that Teixeira's.

    The Twins shouldn't blame the umpires; nor should they lament Teixeira's homer. If they want to blame someone, they should blame themselves for not being able to close out the game; for running the bases haphazardly; and for not being able to score with no outs and the bases loaded. The Yankees beat the Twins in game 2, but only because the Twins contributed mightily by beating themselves efficiently.

Jane Heller at Confessions of a She-Fan writes:

You're comparing Posada to Sheffield now? OK, I'll have to use my weapon of last resort: "Not. One. Word."

    The "not. one. word" thing: A) was a freak occurrence and blip on my radar screen; and B) doesn't work over the interwebs.

    Speaking of empty threats, I vaguely recall one Jane Heller threaten (promise?) to spank one Paul "The Prince of New York" Lebowitz if he continued to write pithy and hilarious vignettes of Posada's antics in the midst of his tantrum for not being in the game 2 starting lineup. I continued to write said vignettes and the punishment was never meted out. It seems that such empty threats are inherent with the Yankees and their fans and are indicative of a larger problem that should be addressed for the good of the club.

• Yankees 4-Twins 3:

    As it turned out, Jorge Posada needn't carry out his diabolical Stewie Griffin-like scheme for world domination and vengeance over society in general and manager Joe Girardi in particular because the Yankees won; therefore, Posada's (empty) threat that the Yankees "better" win without him in the lineup was rendered meaningless.

    For a team like the Twins----overmatched on paper----they cannot give the Yankees chance-after-chance to stick the knife into their collective bellies and expect to escape alive. Time-after-time, the Twins were on the verge of stealing the momentum and the home field advantage away along with the feeling of certainty and confidence on the part of the Yankees that this was finally "their" year; and time-after-time, the Twins let the Yankees get off the deck and eventually, put them on the verge of elimination. 

    The Twins way of playing has always been resistant to slumps and teardowns because of payroll constraints because they do the things they're supposed to do. Their pitchers throw strikes and allow their fielders to do their jobs; they advance runners; they make the plays they should make and play sound fundamental baseball because that's what's drilled into them from the time they enter the organization all the way through to the big leagues. The Twins are the epitome of adherence to the merit system for their players. You do it the Twins way or you don't play and it makes no difference whether you're Joe Mauer, Nick Punto or Brendan Harris; you don't play the game unselfishly and correctly, then don't expect to be in the lineup. Simple and effective.

    Ironically, it was a series of gaffes that cost the Twins game 2 and probably a chance to be competitive in this series. Carlos Gomez overrunning second base, getting tagged out and costing his club the first run; stranding tons of baserunners; not scoring after loading the bases with no outs in the 11th inning; closer Joe Nathan again unable to slam the door on the Yankees with the game in his hands----all were prime examples of why the Twins lost a game they should've won.

    The Twins have been able to compete because of their strict adherence to fundamental baseball and that abandoned them last night along with any possibility of staying in this series. It had nothing to do with payroll disparity or talent; it had to do with execution. The Yankees executed when it counted and the Twins didn't. The one opening in the Yankees defenses came and went as Alex Rodriguez's and Mark Teixeira's homers sailed out of the park----and with it so went the Twins like so much debris in the breeze. 

    They blew it.

    And what's worse is they know it.

• The power of the aesthetic:
  

    Some things just look right. And some things just look wrong.

    It doesn't matter the context; nor does it matter the reality of the situation. There is no escaping the fact that the aesthetic can be as important as the end result. 

    David Lee Roth just looked right as the lead singer of Van Halen. Tony Randall and Jack Klugman just looked right as The Odd Couple. Kirk and Spock just look right at the helm of the Enterprise. Pat Summerall and John Madden working the premier NFL matchup in the 80s just looked right.

    It's something that's innate and unquantifiable and observers----knowledgeable and not----know it.

    Then there's the other side of the equation.

    George Clooney as Batman just looked wrong. Joe Namath in a Rams uniform just looked wrong. Babe Ruth in a Boston Braves uniform as a player and Brooklyn Dodgers uniform as a first base coach just looked wrong. Joe Buck doing, well, Joe Buck doing anything just looks wrong. It's not commonly known, but the studio's preferred choice to play Michael Corleone in The Godfather was Robert Redford; Redford over a then-barely known Al Pacino would've been wrong.

    Anyone who's watched the entirety of the Joba Rules/JOBA RUINATION of the Yankees botched attempts to develop Joba Chamberlain can see that he's a different pitcher when coming out of the bullpen. The meek, frightened and paranoid starter reverts to the dominating force of nature with swagger and palpable power when used as a reliever. It's where he belongs. He has neither the personality nor the aptitude to be as effective a starter as he is a reliever. As a starter, he could be a useful cog; as a reliever, he's a category 5 hurricane; a nuclear bomb; or a level 9 earthquake.

    All the reasons, studies and numbers that insist Chamberlain belongs in the starting rotation are great; they make a case for this continued attempt to force-feed him the job of being a starter; but his implementation as a reliever is what's right.

    It feels right.

    The Yankees might ignore the obvious. They might point to the out-of-context, pigeonholed numbers that don't apply to each and every variance of individual and hammer the square peg into the round hole until the entire apparatus is shattered; but they'll never escape that one simple fact that Chamberlain is one thing----a reliever----and the bullpen is where he belongs. Whether the powers that be in the Yankees front office accept that fact now or ever is irrelevant.

    It's the way it is because it just...looks...right.

• Phillies name Pedro Martinez their game 3 starter:

    It sounds as if the weather in Colorado is going to be so poor that they're unlikely to be able to play the game tonight, but if they do play, the decision to start Pedro Martinez is going to bite the Phillies and fast. 

    Pedro needs at least two innings to get warmed up when the weather is good; how he's going to have any touch and feel for his pitches or get his aging and rickety ligaments and tendons warm in the Rocky Mountain frost is beyond me.

    The Phillies better hope that this game gets called so they have time to re-think their choice of starting pitcher because I can see Pedro getting blasted out in the first inning with a crooked number; and if I were Rockies manager Jim Tracy, I'd have my hitters hacking early. It could get real ugly, real quick for the fading superstar, Pedro Martinez. 

• Wouldn't a permanent GM be a good first move before any of this stuff?

    The Blue Jays have fired a bunch of front office men and scouts----ESPN Story----while still not having a permanent GM. If they intend to name Alex Anthopoulos the full time GM, then it won't matter what they've done here, but if they bring in an outsider as GM, wouldn't it behoove them to, y'know, let the new GM make these calls?

• Milton Bradley to the Rays would be a disaster:

    It would be a self-destructive move of epic proportions to stick Milton Bradley in the Rays clubhouse under weak manager Joe Maddon. Maddon is already going to head into next season in trouble and if Bobby Valentine is still available, don't be surprised to see a quick trigger from the Rays. Putting Bradley in the mix would be like a rancid final meal for the man heading for managerial death row. 

    Is it lost on anyone that's been paying attention that a major part of the Rays turnaround was weeding the organization of troublemakers and players who couldn't or wouldn't function as part of a team concept, nor behave themselves under those simple-to-follow parameters of not being a drug addict, tantrum-thrower or borderline sociopath?

    The dispatching of the likes of Josh Hamilton, Delmon Young and Elijah Dukes sent a clear message that the days of the Rays putting up with anything and everything based on draft level, bonus money and ability were over. Now they're weighing puting Maddon's already shaky status into greater question by adding the albatross of Milton Bradley to his clubhouse? Great idea----if they're lighting the match for an explosion and a reason to fire Maddon by May. 

• Viewer Mail 10.10.2009:

Jeff at Red State Blue State writes RE Jorge Posada:

Though I respect Jorge Posada as a baseball player, he seems, to me, to be the type of guy who would screw his best friend's wife. I'm just sayin'...

    Ouch!!!

    All's well in Yankeeland as Posada's implementation of his evil plot was unnecessary. I'm still curious as to what level of Biblical plague Posada planned to unleash on the unsuspecting public for vengeance.

Jane Heller at Confessions of a She-Fan writes RE Jorge Posada:

Prince, you know better than anyone how it works in NY. There a million media guys begging Jorge to say something they can use. After he said all those "right things," he came out with the "threat," as you call it. Give the guy a break. He was probably sick of answering the same question over and over.

    Oh, of course. But Posada wanted to say what he said to send a message as to how pissed he was. It's like Gary Sheffield when he'd sit at his locker and refuse to discuss <insert subject here>; if the writers simply hung around his locker long enough without saying anything, eventually Gary would go into great detail about that which he had adamantly refused to discuss.

    Posada would've been better off just turning around and saying, "Just leave me the fuck alone!! I wanna play, but I've been benched! That's it!!!"

    Giving a response for which there's no follow-up question or ending matters with a bit of undisguised anger can be as effective as toeing the company line and being politically correct; more so in fact----it would've shut everyone up.

• A mess that could've been avoided:

    I love empty threats.

    Jorge Posada was understandably upset when told that he wouldn't start behind the plate for game 2 of the ALDS against the Twins with A.J. Burnett pitching; but Posada's emotional reaction resulted in him saying something I'm sure he'd like to take back: “We better win that game, that’s all I gotta say."

    Yeah?

    Or what?

    What's Posada going to do? Is he going to hold his breath until he turns blue? Is he going to take a bat to the post-game spread? Seek solace in the arms of Kate Hudson, creating more clubhouse discord between himself and Alex Rodriguez? What are the consequences implied in the Posada quote? Answer: there are none.

    He should probably have stuck to the handy book of generic ballplayer quotes: "It's the manager's decision; it's what he thinks is best; I want what's best for the team; I feel I should be in there, but it's not my call," etc.

    Threats don't do anyone good especially when someone's in no position to be making them to begin with.

    As for the decision itself, I can absolutely understand all sides of the equation. It can't be easy for someone of Posada's stature and with his pride to be told that he's disliked by a certain pitcher given his career-long success dealing with stars like Roger Clemens, Andy Pettitte and Mariano Rivera. Posada's strong-willed, so his reluctance to back down when he thinks he's right regardless of what the pitcher wants is part of the reason he's become such a fine player.

    It took balls for Girardi to do this and to not even throw Posada the bone of using him as the DH. Numerically, there isn't much to go on between Hideki Matsui and Posada as DH; Matsui's 1 for 3 career against Twins starter Nick Blackburn with a double; Posada's never batted against him. Girardi is in a position to have the depth of understanding to make this a well-thought out decision. He was a strong defensive catcher himself and knows the importance of having his pitcher comfortable. I don't know that I would've done this. I probably would've shut my eyes and started Posada behind hte plate for Burnett's start; then again, if it were my decision, Burnett would be pitching game 3 instead of game 2 and Posada would be behind the plate for Andy Pettitte tonight. 

    This is nothing like Billy Martin's spiteful and vindictive benching of Reggie Jackson in game 5 of the ALCS in 1977 because Paul Splittorff was pitching and Reggie had poor numbers against Splittorff. This is a pure baseball decision; I'm sure Girardi would prefer to be able to comfortably play Posada and not deal with the controversy, but he's doing what he sees as right.

    I can't blame Burnett either. A pitcher has enough to think about without worrying for days about how his catcher is going to fight with him on pitch selection. If he's more comfortable with Molina, he's more comfortable with Molina. This is an important game and no time to worry about one man's feelings over what's perceived to be best for the club. Making that evaluation is the manager's job and that's what Girardi's done with this move.

    Molina's little more than an innocent victim here.

    One thing I do not understand is why this situation wasn't resolved earlier in the season. There was plenty of time from spring training on for Posada and Burnett to get comfortable with one another and that it's gotten this far is on Girardi and pitching coach Dave Eiland. They couldn't sit the two players down, have an airing out session of their issues and concerns in a blunt fashion and get the problems straightened out? To come to a consensus and gameplan so this wouldn't go on for the entire season? These are (ostensibly) adults; they're (apparently) professionals; they couldn't fix the problem before this? Agree to disagree and come up with something to make it workable? Everyone knows of the tension between Girardi and Posada simmering beneath the surface and it has affected the situation adversely no matter how both deny it. 

    Egos and childishness are just as much a proximate cause for this mess as are philosophical differences and they should've been nipped in the bud in March. That's the manager's problem and he didn't handle it as his job requires.

• Will there be a managing job for Valentine this winter?

    With the Marlins inexplicable vacillating on the job of Fredi Gonzalez evidently settled with Gonzalez staying; and the Mets keeping Jerry Manuel, will there be a spot for Bobby Valentine to take a managing job this winter?

    There was talk that the Indians were interested, but they're not going to pay Valentine what he wants. The Nationals are a realistic possibility if Mike Rizzo is willing to cede some of his (just acquired) power to deal with Valentine. Aside from that, where is there for Valentine to go? And will he sit out until early next season when numerous jobs are undoubtedly going to be up for grabs? If Joe Torre wins the World Series and retires (and I don't think he would), Valentine has always been like a son to Tommy Lasorda, who still has some sway with the organization; Valentine's a guy that could replace Torre seamlessly on and off the field.

    The specter of Valentine hovering around will be another distraction for managers under fire. If the Mets get off to a bad start and see the season going down the tubes (and GM Omar Minaya knows he's going to get jettisoned if things really spiral), Valentine will be the obvious call. That's not Valentine's fault; he can't help that he's the hot name as a replacement. Other jobs that could be potentially rewarding are the Rays (that's one to watch closely); the Rangers, Cubs, Orioles and Marlins. 

    Don't be surprised if Valentine stays with ESPN into next season to see what develops on the managerial front and there's no reason to call him a vulture because of it.

• Viewer Mail 10.9.2009:

Jane Heller at Confessions of a She-Fan writes RE Joe Girardi's overmanaging:

I disagree about Girardi. One of the reasons CC pitched so well last night, compared to his previous outings in the postseason, is that he hasn't been pushed to pitch complete games or go on short rest. Why not take him out in the seventh? It had nothing to do with pitch counts. He looked tired. Time for a fresh arm.

    The situation was such that I would've had to look at all the possible outcomes and stayed with Sabathia. Sabathia vs Mauer was a better choice to me than Coke/Hughes vs Mauer. It could've been disastrous. Girardi dodged a bullet. I would've let him finish the inning. He's the man, let him do his job.

Jeff at Red State Blue State writes RE ESPN's "Body Issue":

There is no reason for me, nor any other human being (specifically males between the age of 18 and 39, ESPN's main audience), to see pictures of a nude Dwight Howard... EVER... no matter how artsy it claims to be.

    ESPN's been a bit discriminatory in their selection of whom to use in the issue. If they did it fairly, they'd add the likes of Pablo Sandoval, Prince Fielder, George Sherrill and the newly pudgy Pat Burrell. They're contributing to the poor body image of society on the whole with their insistence on using people in so-called "great" shape.

Isaac writes:

I do remember you talking about the mess Depodesta made with Mota, Penny and others, and also remember you talking about Ricciardis unwise spending (Vernon Wells and others). The thing is, I didn't see very clearly how those decisions were based in only stats. I can see they were mistakes, but, for example, how do you know Depodesta's overreliance on stats were what led him to make those mistakes?

    With Ricciardi, it was an interesting dichotomy. He adhered to the Moneyball tenets in the draft and looked to find cheaper, useful alternatives----and did in the likes of Marco Scutaro. He also threw money at problems in a way that was decidedly "un"-Moneyball. Perhaps he had no choice to get players to come to Canada.

    The Wells signing has been blamed somewhat on ownership telling Ricciardi not to let him get away no matter the cost; if that's the case, then he deserves a pass. The A.J. Burnett signing was stupid given Burnett's injury history. People rip the B.J. Ryan signing, but Ryan was almost unhittable his first season; he got hurt; what can you do? Is that a referendum on Ricciardi's scouting skills to have looked past Ryan's horrendous mechanics and sign him anyway? Yes. But Billy Wagner was another big name closer available that year and he got hurt too. The trade of Troy Glaus for Scott Rolen was a gaffe; and his repeated firings of managers made him look like he was doling the blame on others for his own mistakes.

    I honestly believe that if Ricciardi hadn't been such a polarizing figure and created such controversies with his mouth as he did, he might still be the Blue Jays GM. It was an accumulation of screw-ups on and off the field, along with his rampant paranoia and out-of-control temper that contributed to his dismissal. He wasn't a terrible GM in building a team, but his reluctant to take the blame for mistakes and self-immolated far too many times for him to stay.

    As for DePodesta, the stat zombies believe fervently that a good starter is more important than a good reliever. This is arguable in most cases. But what DePodesta did with the Guillermo Mota/Paul LoDuca trade for Brad Penny/Hee Seop Choi wasn't simply an on-field mistake. What I think happened there was DePodesta wanted Randy Johnson and was willing to take Penny and spin him off for Johnson; if he didn't get Johnson, he was willing to live with Penny.

    The problem was that Penny arrived hurt and DePodesta had stripped the Dodgers of what had gotten them to that point in the season (60-42 and 3 1/2 games in first place). That team had grown up together and developed into a contender as a cohesive unit; they liked and trusted manager Jim Tracy and were rolling toward the playoffs.

    If the club was floundering or simply didn't feel right, then yes, you drop a bomb in the clubhouse with a big deal. The arguable point of whether a reliever is more important as a starter wasn't applicable with the 2004 Dodgers because he essentially gave Mota away for Penny, from whom they got nothing for the rest of the season. Once that Dodgers club had a lead in the sixth or seventh inning, the game was over. Duaner Sanchez was also part of that bullpen. It was devastating with Sanchez, lefty specialist Tom Martin, Mota and Eric Gagne. That championship-winning formula was eliminated with one stupid move.

    What the trade also did was force the veterans, manager and coaches to look at DePodesta with a jaundiced eye. Up until then, he hadn't done anything to indicate his tenure would unravel as it did. In fact, his first major trade was a risky one that was paying dividends when he acquired Milton Bradley from the Indians. Bradley behaved himself that season and played well.

    Dealing the de facto captain of the team, Lo Duca; the best set-up man in baseball, Mota; installing the injury-prone and overmatched Darren Dreifort as set-up man; and having Penny get hurt made the club wonder if they'd be the next ones out the door if DePodesta got a chance to find someone whose on base percentage was eight points higher than theirs. The team stumbled down the stretch, but made the playoffs because of what had been built in the first half of that season and long before by the stability and principles under which teams are properly formed. These were symptoms of a larger malady. 

    The blindness to anything other than bottom-line numbers and Moneyball principles was taken to its logical conclusion after the season. Sufficiently undermined, Tracy was already on the managerial death watch despite the great work he'd done. DePodesta ignored any and all tenets of team chemistry by bringing in the passionless (J.D. Drew); the misanthropic (Jeff Kent); and paying big money for mediocrity (Odalis Perez) and 2005 was a direct result of that.

    When you build a team that way; when you ignore anything other than numbers and baseline principles with little-to-no flexibility, it's either going to pay off big or fail miserably. You cannot have a team----and that Dodgers club was a team, better than the sum of its statistical parts----saying to themselves that they'd better play for their numbers because as soon as someone with slightly better stats is available, they'll be gone. It's a recipe for disaster and that's how and why DePodesta's time there ended.

    It was his own fault. Those that refuse to acknowledge these facts are simply promoting a friend for another job because he's their friend and it demolishes any and all credibility because of an agenda. The sad thing is that they're either so invested in their beliefs to accept it, or don't realize it at all. That's a poor reflection on them.

• Yankees 7-Twins 2:

    It was an all-around great performance by the Yankees. C.C. Sabathia overcame his usually shaky playoff performances and pitched into the seventh inning despite shoddy defense from catcher Jorge Posada...*

*It looked like Posada was sending a message to manager Joe Girardi, "You're benching me for game 2 because of my subpar defense? I'll show you some subpar defense!"

...Derek Jeter homered; Alex Rodriguez busted out with 2 hits and 2 RBI; Hideki Matsui hit one over the center field fence. But it could've gone far differently if Girardi's overmanaging had come back to bite him.

    Indulge me if you will.

    With a 6-2 lead, two outs and two runners on in the seventh inning and Orlando Cabrera due to bat, Girardi yanked Sabathia after 113 pitches in favor of Phil Hughes. Hughes went to a full count on Cabrera and eventually struck him out; but it could've gone a whole other way. What if Cabrera had walked or found some other way on base. Joe Mauer was batting next it would've been pick your poison with relievers. Phil Coke was warming up in the bullpen and could've been summoned for Mauer. Now, Mauer hits lefties; is a career 3 for 4 off of Coke with 2 homers; is 0 for 3 vs Hughes; and has a .217 career average vs Sabathia with no homers. So, if Cabrera had gotten on base, the tying run at the plate would've been Mauer. 

    Who would you rather trust against the best hitter in baseball? C.C. Sabathia with his $160 million contract and career-long success against Mauer? Phil Hughes, a righty? Or Coke, who Mauer murders?

    It was pure overmanaging. Sabathia didn't give up any solid hits that inning to allow the baserunners----he hit a guy and gave up an infield hit. And I don't want to hear about the number of pitches he'd thrown; he's big, tough and strong and could've thrown 10-15 more pitches without it affecting a possible game 5 start.

    Later on, Girardi continued with his penchant for doing "manager stuff" to appear as if he's paying attention to situations by going lefty-righty with Coke and Joba Chamberlain---with the score 7-2! It was pointless and could be a problem as the series and/or post-season wears on because, all due respect to a guy whose team won 102 games this year, Girardi is not the strategic equivalent of any of the other American League playoff managers; nor is he a match for Joe Torre or Jim Tracy; and don't even dare mention Girardi's name in the same breath as Tony La Russa.

    This could be a problem for the Yankees. A big one.

• Phillies 5-Rockies 1:

    Cliff Lee solved the issues surrounding the Phillies bullpen by not letting them have anything to do with the game at all. Smart move.

• Dodgers 5-Cardinals 3:

    When I said one of the keys to the Dodgers winning this series was not letting Albert Pujols beat them; that they'd force Matt Holliday to back up Pujols by making them pay for pitching around Pujols, I didn't mean that the Dodgers would send that message so clearly and forcefully by walking Pujols intentionally in the first inning with runners on second and third with no outs. 

    It worked because Holliday struck out. (He looked like he was pressing and, honestly, slightly frightened.) I have to give props to Dodgers manager Joe Torre for having the balls to do that; I wouldn't walk a guy intentionally in the first inning no matter who it is. If the Dodgers go on to win this series; keep Pujols from beating them; and render Holliday meaningless, the flash-point of the series will be that first inning intentional walk.

• ESPN the Magazine's "THE BODY" issue:

    Have you seen this thing? (Click the link above.) It's ridiculous; like a spoof. And trust me, I know ridiculous spoofs when I see them----I'm a Mets fan.

• Viewer Mail 10.8.2009: 
  

Joe (Fragile Freddy) writes:

Oops, I had not realized I was logged into my account, never intended to obscure myself.

You still haven't answered the questions as I pointed out.

    Mr. Lebowitz will give Joe (Fragile Freddy) a pass for the log in snafu---for once. 

    Once.

    As for Mr. Lebowitz answering the questions proffered by Joe (Fragile Freddy), the consensus is that I did answer them; apparently not to your satisfaction, but these are the answers Mr. Lebowitz provided. And Mr. Lebowitz stands by them.

My Captains are stand-up guys.

Jeff at Red State Blue State writes: 

For the record, I believe the "name calling" began with the rampant ramblings of those making fun of Mr. Lebowitz and his site on BBTF way back when. From time to time I check over there to see what the discussion is, and said name calling seems to be normal activity for those involved. Even I was attacked, much to my amusement; and that childish brand of chiding one another with clever EQA, PECOTA and VORP insertions -- which attempt to mask the deeper, underlying angst of the group mind -- seems to be the only element that garners any type of discussion, if you can call it a discussion.

Gabriel writes from Oktoberfest (sober enough to be coherent, I believe):

What answer do you seek, Joe? Mr. Lebowitz answered with his point of view, that I think is very reasonable. That's why time series analysis is not the ultimate way to model a stock, for example. You need the expertise of your finance guys to guide you and to eliminate illusions created by the numbers. Statistics are not an end, they're a tool. That's the same think Mr. Lebowitz is proclaiming. Most sabermetricians discard any argument that is not based on their statistics, and even then they reject other people's numbers because there are stats that they like more than others.

And if you want a math argument, variance exists. Therefore, although the numbers can say something VERY useful, the events present some form of randomness and therefore the results aren't definitive. And in this variance is included things like attitude from the player, pitching motions, and the like. As long as the variance is positive, no result can be said definitive.

    No comment from me is necessary. That's what Capos are for.

Isaac writes: 

 I think Joe usually makes sense, but this time I really have a hard time trying to understand what he said. To me, it's obvious you answered the question. And you specifically said you are not against the use of stats, and that you think they are necessary. I do think you do name-calling, but you also back your statements with facts, unlike the people you criticize, the "stat zombies"(and by the way, you have also made clear you know there are people who follow stats, but analyze them logically and do not them as the only thing that matters in analyzing players,and if I remember right, you pretty much said Joe himself was one of those). Also, Fragile Freddy says: "I would not build a house without the aid of a level and a tape measure using all the available information before building a ball club seems wise.". I think this actually is in line with the way you say a ballclub should be run. You agree that you need all the available information,be it statistic informant!
ion or any other kind of useful information. It's just that you say that information alone is not always enough.

I do think, however, that you might need to be more specific when you talk about the facts that prove using only stats is not a smart thing to do. You say that Depodesta, Ricciardi and those guys have failed while doing that, but I don't remember seeing you mention specific examples with specific players when you defend that position. I agree with you on that, but I think it might be necessary to give more facts, or further explained reasons, if you want to convince someone whose opinion is contrary to yours. And, what exactly is your opinion about name-calling? Sometimes you seem to criticize it I think, but you use it, too. And I(honestly) wonder if the scouting-only people do name-calling the same way the stat-only guys do. I havent seen them do that, but I havent seen many scouting-only people anywhere either.

    You're getting your "Joes" confused. You're thinking of Joe at Statistician Magician who's gone MIA. Neither I nor any of my people had anything to do with his disappearance. 

    Have I really partaken in name-calling? I call Michael Kay a buffoon, but, A) he is a buffoon; and B) it's said in half-jest. As for the "stat zombie" term, would it be better if I called them by the more widely used term of "stat geek"? I'd rather be a zombie than a geek, but that's just me.

    Isaac, do you seriously not remember be providing examples of the gaffes of the likes of Ricciardi and DePodesta? Just last week when discussing DePodesta being mentioned as a candidate for the Padres job, I discussed his screw-ups in his 20-month reign of terror as Dodgers GM. Firing Jim Tracy; the trade for Brad Penny; etc. With Ricciardi also, I have gone into his negatives and even his positives. His time as Blue Jays GM wasn't that terrible and would be looked at more positively if he hadn't had such an explosive temper and been so unfailingly honest when answering questions. In truth, I think Ricciardi's an interesting guy who's probably not temperamentally suited to being a GM.

    The commenters on BBTF and elsewhere can say whatever they want about me----who cares?----but I don't think I've gone over-the-top with name calling.

Jane Heller at Confessions of a She-Fan writes:

I was all set to leave a pithy comment but then my phone rang and I've been on with someone for a half hour while trying to remember what I was going to write here! Forgive me. Just know that I'm counting on your prediction of Yankees in 4 to be 100% accurate. No pressure though.

    Like saving a piece of writing so you don't accidentally erase it, you should've mentioned the pithy comment to your alter ego/She-Fan doll, then you would've had it ready to go phone call or not.  

John Seal writes:

Wait...you're from the Le Pomme Grande, and you DON'T KNOW that Prince Paul is the New York-born producer who helped craft Long Island-based hip hop group De La Soul's groundbreaking 1989 LP, 3 Feet High and Rising? You clearly spent too much time that year watching Ho Jo, Kevin McReynolds, and DAAAARRYLLL jacking 'em out of Shea.

    Uh. Now that you mention it, I, uh, did know that. I just...forgot. 

    His time is past anyway. There's a new Prince in town. And he's not taking prisoners. 

    Did you have to mention the 80s Mets? The sadness is two-fold with those teams: A) they underachieved terribly; and B) had there been a Wild Card from 1984-1990, they would've made the playoffs every single year and probably won----at least----two more championships. 

    Thanks John. Now I'm depressed. 

• Minnesota Twins (87-76) 1st place, American League Central vs New York Yankees (103-59) 1st place, American League East:

Keys for the Twins: HIT!!!!; don't let past pitching implosions cloud the present; give the Yankees pitchers a chance to lose the strike zone.

    After the frenzied hot streak that got the Twins into the one-game playoff with the Tigers and the classic game itself, there's every chance of the club taking a deep breath and relaxing, happy that they're in the playoffs. Because of that, they could find themselves ambushed by the Yankees and down 5-0 before they even realize what happened; then they could head back to Minnesota down two games and be swept out of the playoffs before their hangovers have subsided. 

    The biggest problem a team has when they have to go on a tear down the stretch just to make the playoffs is that by the time they get to the playoffs, their pitching is in shambles. The Twins are in such a state that they're forced to start rookie Brian Duensing in the first playoff game at the new Yankee Stadium; there's every chance that he'll be overwhelmed.

    What is a benefit for the Twins in the pitching matchup is that C.C. Sabathia has historically been too strong and amped up in the playoffs and has not pitched well. If they're not overly aggressive, they could get some baserunners and some flat fastballs to hit; in Yankee Stadium, with the way the ball flies out of the park, they'll score their share of runs.

    The Twins have had trouble holding leads against the Yankees because of bullpen meltdowns and Yankee power and patience; if they get a lead, they have to hold it. This can be handled by scoring, scoring and scoring more. The Yankees pitching isn't in the greatest shape despite their salaries and if the Twins are as pesky as they've been, they have a shot. 

Keys for the Yankees: Get good starting pitching; score early and often; take a lead into the late innings.

    The key to the Yankees post-season will be the pitching. For the record, I'd start Andy Pettitte in game 2 over A.J. Burnett, but manager Joe Girardi chose to go the opposite way. The issue of Jorge Posada/Jose Molina behind the plate for Burnett is a distraction and nothing more; I'd DH Posada, but can understand why Girardi is doing what he's doing. The tension between Girardi and Posada has always been palpable and is only going to get worse as things move forward.

    The Yankees have the advantage of being able to bash their way past any starting pitching issues; that the Twins pitching staff is so tattered will lead to baserunners and possibly big innings. The Twins don't generally beat themselves, so the Yankees need to be patient and wait for the young Twins pitchers to make mistakes.

    Burnett has never pitched in a post-season game and might be too pumped up to have good command; the decision to use Molina----with whom Burnett's more comfortable---- behind the plate is what's best for the team. Whether it does much good remains to be seen.

    The Yankees bullpen, with Joba Chamberlain joining Phil Hughes and Mariano Rivera, must slam the door if they have a lead. If the games are close late, the Yankees have historically had the Twins number. 

What will happen:

    The Twins aren't going to be satisfied by just making the playoffs, but there's bound to be some inadvertent relaxation that goes on as the game starts; this could lead to a rapid deficit in the series. The Yankees starting pitching issues are going to crop up. If the Twins somehow won game one, I'd be frantic over Burnett in game two if I was a Yankee fan.

    I doubt that will happen.

    The Yankees are going to score and score a lot. These are going to be high-scoring affairs and the Twins cannot hang with the Yankees in a slugfest.

    It's going to be fascinating to see Carl Pavano pitch against the Yankees in game 3 and if the series is tied 1-1 for the game? It's a must watch.

    The Twins pitching is in such a shambles and so exhausted that it won't matter how many runs their offense scores, they can't hang with the Yankees aside from taking one game. And that's what will happen.

PREDICTION: YANKEES IN FOUR.

• St. Louis Cardinals vs Los Angeles Dodgers:

Keys for the Cardinals: Feast on the Dodgers starting pitching; get good starting pitching of their own; get runners on base in front of Albert Pujols; Matt Holliday must make the Dodgers pay.

    The Cardinals rode the trio of Chris Carpenter, Adam Wainwright and Joel Piniero into the playoffs. The starting pitching matchups are clearly to the advantage of the Cardinals as the Dodgers are starting Randy Wolf in the opener; young Clayton Kershaw in game 2; and evidently Vicente Padilla in game 3. The Cardinals starting pitching is battle-tested and tough; Wainwright proved his fearlessness in the 2006 post-season when he took over as closer and was brilliant. Carpenter might be heading for the Hall of Fame if he wasn't so injury-prone; and Piniero has enjoyed a resurgence under Tony La Russa/Dave Duncan.

    Despite La Russa's skills at mixing and matching with his bullpen, closer Ryan Franklin has never closed in the playoffs and struggled down the stretch; the Dodgers bullpen is superior to that of the Cardinals. The Cardinals need their starting pitchers to get deeply into the games to avoid any bullpen meltdowns.

    It goes without saying that Matt Holliday is going to get his RBI opportunities as the Dodgers will avoid giving Albert Pujols anything to hit at all. If Holliday is hitting, the Cardinals are going to score a lot against the Dodgers shaky starters. 

Keys for the Dodgers: Manny being Manny; starting pitching; score, score, score; get into the Cardinals bullpen; hand the game to their bullpen with a lead; control Pujols/Holliday.

    I wouldn't feel comfortable with Wolf in the opener; Kershaw has wicked stuff, but he's a kid, it could go either way with him; and they're starting Vicente Padilla in game 3 and won't have Chad Billingsley until game 4----if there is a game 4. The Dodgers must keep the games close into the late innings and hope the Cardinals have to dip into their bullpen, then the Dodgers will be able to feast.

    Manny Ramirez had a bad year for him, but he tends to rise to the occasion in the post-season. If Manny is ripping, he's as, if not more, dangerous than Pujols. My hunch is that the Cardinals pitchers are going to challenge him and that could be very, very risky. If Manny is hitting, he could wreck the whole series for the Cardinals.

    Manager Joe Torre isn't going to let Pujols beat him; early in the series, they'll see what Holliday can do with runners on base. If he doesn't hit, the Cardinals will have trouble scoring. Torre's not going to go long with his starting pitchers either, which will make whomever is the long reliever of choice very, very important. (It's unknown whether Torre and the Dodgers are going to have James McDonald, Jon Garland or Jeff Weaver on the roster; I'd use McDonald.)

What will happen:  

    The Dodgers bullpen is superior to that of the Cardinals and I do believe their lineup will be able to score on the Cardinals solid starting pitching. Manny is going to bust out in a big way. While it's almost impossible to stop Pujols completely----there's been talk about what's "wrong" with Pujols because he's had a homer drought; watch him go deep on the first pitch he sees----he can be controlled. Holliday will be of utmost importance to the Cardinals chances. He might also be pressing a bit because a big post-season can increase a player's paycheck exponentially as he enters free agency----see Beltran, Carlos.

    Playoff series usually boil down to a battle of the bullpens and I have more confidence in the Dodgers relievers than those of the Cardinals. This is going to be a long, drawn out battle and will come down to a game 5. In that game 5, the last team standing will be the Dodgers.

PREDICTION: DODGERS IN 5. 

• Viewer Mail 10.7.2009:

Jane Heller at Confessions of a She-Fan writes:

I couldn't get on your blogspot site again today. Have it checked! I like your prediction for Sox-Angels. If the Yanks get through the AL Central winner, as you predicted they would (since you predicted they'll win the WS), I'll be able to drive down to Anaheim to see a game.

    I think we established long ago that I'm a complete and utter clod, so it should be no surprise that I can't even cut and paste a website url properly. 

    The Boss will only permit you to go see the Yankees-Angels if you wear the Peppermint Patty T-shirt.

John Seal writes RE: the Joba Rules:

Prince Paul,

As part of your response to Joe's e-mail regarding stat zombies vs scouts, you wrote:

"Have the Yankees had success with their research and development in how to use Joba Chamberlain? On paper, they insist what they're doing is right, but what about in practice? Has it worked? Would Chamberlain be better if they loosened up a bit, lost their paranoia and let him pitch?"

Now I'm no Yankees fan, and barely pay any attention to the team. So consider me well out of the loop when it comes to the Joba Rules. My question  is: are those rules, as you imply, strictly based on statistical analysis? Or are there (God forbid) intangibles (e.g., age, personality, family background, media spotlight issues) that may also be influencing the way the team is handling him? In other words, could the Joba Rules be the product of an unhealthy construct built equally from stat zombie viscera and scout zombie bits and pieces?

PS. Love your production work, especially on those De La Soul albums.

    No one seems to know exactly what the genesis of these floating rules are. All we hear is a vague reference to gradually increasing the number of innings that he'll be allowed to throw. Supposedly, the optimal increase is no more than 40 innings a year; after that, the thinking goes that it's more likely a pitcher will get hurt. That they keep altering the "rules" tells me they're just pulling stuff out of their asses to see what works and that's more dangerous than adhering to them strictly.

    To me, it's taken out of context. You can find pitchers who've gotten hurt throwing loads and loads of innings and pitches; and you can find pitchers who haven't. Chamberlain had arm trouble from overuse in college and that's part of the reason that he fell to the Yankees in the draft to begin with despite his obvious gifts. There's also an implication that his motion is stressful; I don't think it is overly stressful.

    The Red Sox have been pioneers in studying historical pitchers, their own possible draftees' medical histories and which types get hurt and don't; one would assume the Yankees are doing something similar. The reactions of the fans and media have affected the Yankees use of Chamberlain as well whether they admit or not. If they really believe in what they're doing, why are they constantly adjusting it?

    I'm sure the scouts were in love with Chamberlain on first sight; and the Yankees are trying to apply stat zombie numbers and computer printouts to keep him healthy and it's making a mess. Part of a pitching coach's job is to be able to spot flaws and minuscule alterations to a pitcher's mechanics that show he's tired. Pitchers get hurt when their legs go because they begin to overstress their arms; so if the pitching coach and manager aren't allowed to have some flexibility with leaving a pitcher in if he's pitching well and looks strong, all the rules and numbers in the world aren't going to let him develop to his full potential.

    With the haphazard way Chamberlain's been used, it's no wonder his mechanics desert him. The only way to develop timing is repetition and he's not getting the required reps.

    Um. "Production work"? "De La Soul"? Uh. Thanks(?) 

    Huh(?)

    That one went past me John. Anyone will tell you I'm notoriously slow on the uptake.

Joe writes RE stat zombies:

Nope, didn't answer the question. You consistenly harp on "stat zombies" without any illustration on why using statistics is bad. Your answer has you backpedalling like a cornerback. YOU are the one engaging in name-calling, YOU are the one trying to exclude people.

I'm a BTF regular, if you read through the pages over there you'd often find spirited debate over various issues both stat-based and otherwise.

When you resort to name calling (as you do on your blog) then you are the cause of the "implication that I'm some crusty, Bob Feller-style miserable old bastard who doesn't want to hear about anything that's happened after 1985."

    I answered the question, Joe. You just don't like the answer I gave, and that's on you.

Jeff at Red State Blue State writes RE the above comment:

I think this is the part that answers the question, Mr. Joe:

"Not only do I use statistics, but I don't think any organization can effectively function without a group of stat zombies analyzing and crunching numbers. In today's game it would be idiotic to ignore the stats----old and new----that are popping up every day. My issue with stat-based analysis is not the endeavor in and of itself, but the way the adherence to the numbers, computer printouts and "optimal" usage for players has permeated the game and taken experience, knowledge (about players and people) away, ignoring and ridiculing those that look at other aspects because there's no "hard data" to quantify them. There's nothing wrong with statistical evidence as long as it's not used at the expense of other methods of building a team; methods that have just as much----and sometimes more----value. Sometimes a veteran scout's eye is a better judge of a player than said player's numbers. He might like the way a player moves; runs; throws; or even behaves----there's nothing wrong with that and it's worked before. The arrogance and pomposity inherent with the new blood that's infecting the game has degenerated us into the current situation. Warring factions within organizations unable to find common ground; people thinking that because they can read numbers from a sheet that they can tell an experienced and successful baseball man what to do and getting abusive when they're dismissed; using numbers as the end-all, be-all when flexibility and interpretive skill is required----all have created this battle between belief systems where they shouldn't be one.
This idea----that gained prominence in the farce that is Moneyball----that the Ivy League educated "geniuses" are going to reinvent a game that's impossible to quantify was absurd on the surface. No one is dismissing the importance of a high on base percentage; but it's not the final word in all things. Sometimes chances have to be taken that aren't cut and dried in the numbers. Have the Yankees had success with their research and development in how to use Joba Chamberlain? On paper, they insist what they're doing is right, but what about in practice? Has it worked? Would Chamberlain be better if they loosened up a bit, lost their paranoia and let him pitch? Did the Mets make a mistake in trading a player they didn't want in Ryan Church for Jeff Francoeur? All we heard at the time was how much of a "better" player Church is than Francoeur; but what did Church do for the Braves? Almost nothing. Francoeur, aggravating because of his lack of patience, is five years younger and is a thoroughbred who needs to be bridled. The Mets may not be able to tame him, but if they do, they'll have an MVP-quality talent who lit up the clubhouse with his personality, hustle and enthusiasm. It's not just about OBP. It's about building a team of people. It's about maximizing what a player can do and using him accordingly instead of dismissing and dumping him for what he can't do. The stats aren't the problem; the people who are elbowing their way into the game armed with no knowledge aside from numbers are. If you look at the comments on BBTF about whatever subject is broached, there's no discussion; no exchange of ideas; no debate----just lame attempts at abuse and it's not helping the cause for those who believe in statistics. The reasonable stat people know that there's more to building a team than just applying numbers----it's failed miserably when it's been attempted most notably with Paul DePodesta and the Dodgers and Sandy Alderson with the Padres. As long as the situation is "us against them" with no room for consensus, nothing's going to change and neither side will gain anything from such a war of attrition until one side is completely dead. Both schools of thought should agree that that won't help anyone or advance either side of the debate and until this condescension and arrogance ends such a consensus won't be reached."

Makes sense to me.

    Oh, Captain, my Captain!!!

Fragile Freddy (aka JOE!!!!) writes: 

So effectively Mr. Lebowitz (hope I spelled that right, sorry if I didn't) has no problem with statistical analysis his issue is with people with bad people skills.

However, for some reason scouts and others are not part of his name calling campaign, only "stat zombies."

I don't quite grasp lines like "adherence to the numbers...has permeated the game." He seems to be going out of his way to be critical only of statistical endeavors.

He states there is an "arrogance and pomposity inherent with the new blood that's infecting the game has degenerated us into the current situation" without explaining what the "current situation" is. Assuming that the "current situation" is an overreliance on stats, please explain why this is bad?

To me it seems that relying on factual data rather than nebulous concepts like "Player X is a winner" is the way I'd want to run a business. Just as I would not build a house without the aid of a level and a tape measure using all the available information before building a ball club seems wise.

Mr. Lebowitz chooses instead to resort to name calling which does not exactly inspire confidence in the equity of his positions.

    It's indicative of an attempt to objectify people by casting them in the third person instead of confronting them directly. Such was the case in The Silence of the Lambs as the serial killer Buffalo Bill orders his victim to follow instructions:

It rubs the lotion on its skin. It does this whenever it is told. 

It rubs the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again. 

Now it places the lotion in the basket. 

It places the lotion in the basket. 

    The only person who addresses Mr. Lebowitz in the third person while in his presence is Mr. Lebowitz.

    That you chose to use a different name to do this is even more of a reflection on you than the refusal to accept Mr. Lebowitz's initial answer to your question based on Mr. Lebowitz's well-considered feelings on how to run a club.

    The way the stat zombies run their clubs is rapidly disintegrating into ridicule and rampant firings and this has nothing to do with name-calling or misunderstanding of numbers; it has to do with bottom line incompetence.

    One by one, the DePodestas, Ricciardis and even the Beanes and the exalted Bill James are shown to be just as imperfect and worse in formulating successful organizations. Your quote to "build a house without the aid of a level and a tape measure using all the available information before building a ball club" falls apart as the results of the previously mentioned GMs and analysts are looked at with greater scrutiny instead of the star stricken awe created by Moneyball. The fear to protest that is inherent in those who don't believe in it as a final arbiter of finding players has bolstered the argument and emboldened the stat zombies for far too long.

    Such is not the case with Mr. Lebowitz.

    Mr. Lebowitz is not afraid.

    You have something to say to me, address me directly. And use your real name rather than hiding behind "Fragile Freddy" Fragile Joe. 

Colorado Rockies (92-70) 2nd place, NL West (Wild Card winner) vs Philadelphia Phillies (93-69) 1st place, NL East:

Keys for the Rockies: keep the scores down; get into the Phillies bullpen; ride Troy Tulowitzki.

    The Rockies are going to be without Jorge De La Rosa for the first round with a groin problem. Ubaldo Jimenez and Aaron Cook are scheduled to start the first two games of the series which could turn out to be a blessing in disguise for the Rockies. Jimenez has dominating power stuff and Cook is the type of ground ball pitcher who will keep the Phillies in the park. 

    The Rockies have a good hitting team (they were second in the National League in runs scored this year----behind the Phillies), but they can't get into a slugfest with the Phillies. It's important for the Rockies to keep the scores low and/or close into the late innings and either be leading or within one or two runs by the ninth inning. The Phillies still don't have the faintest clue as to who they're going to use as their closer; Brad Lidge is a disaster; Ryan Madson has been up-and-down; and any of the other pitchers they could use are a flip of the coin. In a tight game the Rockies are going to have the advantage late. 

    Troy Tulowitzki carried the Rockies from the time Clint Hurdle was fired all the way through the end of the season. Just as it was in 2007, Tulowitzki is the glue of the Rockies and as he goes, so does the rest of the club; if he has a good series, the Rockies will have a good series; if not, they won't.

Keys for the Phillies: get a lead large enough to hand over to the bullpen; ride the starting pitchers deep.

    After their World Series win in 2008, the Phillies are battle-tested. Cliff Lee is starting the opening game of the NLDS; Lee has never appeared in a post-season game and didn't pitch particularly well down the stretch after a blazing start in the National League when he was traded to the Phillies. The Phillies must get solid performances from their starting pitching to have a chance or they're going to have to bash their way through the Rockies. Cole Hamels is starting game two and he had an up-and-down year. If the two lefties don't pitch well, the Phillies are going to be in trouble and fast.

    Jimmy Rollins had a poor offensive year, but he rises to the big occasions. Ryan Howard and Chase Utley are a devastating combination and Jayson Werth had his career year with 36 homers. Raul Ibanez slumped for the entire second half. They're all going to need to hit for the Phillies to b accumulate comfortable leads going into the late innings. As much as they still insist they're willing to trust Brad Lidge, no one in the Phillies organization nor the entire city of Philadelphia are going to be comfortable if he's pitching in any situation other than a mop-up role. If the Phillies have a one or two run lead in the eighth inning, it will be fascinating how they work their precarious situation.

What will happen:

    I have deep concerns about the Phillies pitching from top-to-bottom. Lee and Hamels have not pitched well and the bullpen is like throwing a dart at a dartboard with eyes closed. Who knows what's going to happen late in the games if the Phillies are leading? The Rockies have a pitching advantage in both the starting rotation and the bullpen. Jimenez has power, dominating stuff that will keep the Phillies bashers in the park; Cook should keep the ball in the park in Philly. I think the Phillies starters are going to get batted around pretty good at home.

    There will be at least one game out of the first two that comes down to whether the Phillies bullpen can get the job done and I have no confidence whatsoever in anyone they intend to use in the ninth inning. It would take courage beyond belief to trust Lidge in the ninth inning of the first game with a 1,2 or 3 run lead and I can't imagine manager Charlie Manuel doing it.

    The Rockies are going to score off the Phillies pitching; I believe that the Rockies staff will be able to handle the Phillies lineup well enough to keep the games close and allow their club to take advantage of the Phillies bullpen issues. Tulowitzki will have a big series. The Rockies have been playing with a lot of luck since Jim Tracy took over and there's something that plainly and simply doesn't feel right about the Phillies. They're too righty heavy and won't score enough to deal with their own shaky pitching.

    The Rockies ride will continue as they end the Phillies title reign in the first round.

PREDICTION: ROCKIES IN FOUR.  

• Boston Red Sox (95-67) 2nd place, AL East (Wild Card Winner) vs Los Angeles Angels (97-65) 1st place, AL West:

Keys for the Red Sox: The starting pitching; David Ortiz.

    It would concern me greatly that Josh Beckett is starting the second game rather than the first. To me, this is an indication that the back spasms that caused him to miss his start last week and that he didn't pitch particularly well in his final tune up against the Indians are a bigger issue than they're letting on. Given Beckett's history as a post-season horse, wouldn't the Red Sox want him ready to pitch game 5 if necessary? The only way to do that is if he starts game one.

    As good as Jon Lester's been, he doesn't have Beckett's post-season cachet and if this series is a prolonged brawl, the Red Sox could face the sudden shortness of their starting pitching and it would be a bad ending. On the bright side with Lester, he hasn't been affected adversely by the bruise from getting hit with the line drive against the Yankees.

    That they've resorted to young Clay Buchholz in what could be a make-or-break game 3 start would make me even more skittish if I was a Red Sox fan. Buchholz has gotten pummeled in his last two starts; has pitched okay this year----not great; and has never pitched in one post-season game in the majors. You never know how a young pitcher will react to such a circumstance. You could get a Beckett performance from the 2003 World Series; or you could get a Rick Ankiel performance from 2000----you never know; and if he's pitching game three in Boston with the entire city panicking after losing the first two games of the series? Watch out.

    The Angels presumably learned their lesson last year with Jason Bay as Bay exploded from the cage he'd been in with the Pirates and batted .412 with 2 homers and 5 RBI in last year's ALDS. Bay won't get the chance to beat the Angels again. The Red Sox key is David Ortiz. Even though he enjoyed a solid second half after an atrocious start that led some to believe he was finished, he's still not the same Big Papi he was five years ago. He's going to be forced to produce some big hits for the Red Sox because the Angels aren't going to let Bay, Kevin Youkilis or Victor Martinez beat them. Ortiz must deliver if the Red Sox are going to win.

Keys for the Angels: The bullpen; being patient.

    The one Achilles heel for the Angels this season has been their usually superlative bullpen. If Angels fans thought Francisco Rodriguez used to give them heart attacks, wait until they have to watch Brian Fuentes come in to close a game with Youkilis, Martinez, Bay, et al staring out at him. Fuentes's strikeout numbers went into the toilet this year (46 in 55 innings) and he allowed far too many baserunners. If Fuentes pitches well, the Angels will do well; if not...

    Manager Mike Scioscia was able to patch things together with the talented and hard-throwing Jason Bulger, Matt Palmer, Keven Jepsen and Darren Oliver, but if the Angels starters get knocked out early and they have to rely on the bullpen, they're in trouble. They need the starting pitching to go very deeply into the games.

    John Lackey's been money in the post-season for the most part and he's singing for his free agent supper, so he should do well. Jered Weaver has blossomed into a horse and his funky windup makes him a tough assignment; he's pitched very well against the Red Sox this year (1 earned run in 13 2/3 innings). Scott Kazmir and Joe Saunders are scheduled to start games 3 and 4 in Boston.

    One of the biggest downfalls of the Angels in 2008 weren't the failures of the bullpen----Scot Shields and K-Rod specifically----but the overaggressiveness that the manager sometimes exhibits. After the Angels acquired Mark Teixeira at mid-season 2008, the Angels made the mistake of not tweaking their game to account for the newly acquired basher. They still played the National League-style of inside baseball that Scioscia was reared on playing for Tommy Lasorda with the Dodgers and against the likes of Whitey Herzog with the Cardinals. It was a gaffe. The botched squeeze play in game four of last year's ALDS cost the Angels a chance at game 5 and possibly winning the series.

    The Angels have improved their plate discipline this season and if they take their foot off the pedal just that tiny bit, they're going to be a lot better off.

What will happen:

    The Angels are working with a little magic this year. After the death of Nick Adenhart, they could've packed everything up and had a season of misery on and off the field----and everyone would've understood. Instead, they used their late teammate as an inspiration and, led by their manager, recovered to win their division easily ignoring the trivial issues that were affecting them as the season wore on. A friend and teammate dying in such a stupid and senseless way puts everything into perspective very quickly as bullpen meltdowns and injuries are rendered meaningless in the grand scheme of things. 

     The Red Sox pitching issues are going to be a problem. The lineup will score, but will they be able to count on Beckett? On Buchholz? On the bullpen? The Angels are not going to allow Bay to beat them again; they're not going to let Martinez or Youkilis or Dustin Pedroia beat them----it's going to come down to Big Papi and I don't know if he can handle that responsibility at this point in his career. His bat has slowed down and with the adrenaline of the playoffs increasing the velocity of the pitchers, will he be able to catch up to a hard fastball inside as he used to? I say no. 

    The prevalent belief is that the Red Sox have beaten the Angels in the playoffs the past two years that they have their "number". Well, Red Sox fans should know better than anyone from their dealings with and losses to the Yankees that if you play a team often enough and beat them over-and-over again, eventually they're going to get you. The Red Sox starting pitching will be their downfall as will be the fade of David Ortiz. It's going to be different this time. The Angels are on a mission.

    They're going to take out the Red Sox.

    Easily.

PREDICTION: ANGELS IN THREE.

• A note about the Tigers-Twins one-game playoff:

• Firing the first base coach would do wonders...if the first base coach actually did anything:

    Here's the problem with the Mets doing little else than firing first base coach Luis Alicea and re-assigning Sandy Alomar Sr within the organization----it's meaningless!!!

    People don't want to hear this truth, but the only coaches who have any import on a staff are the pitching coach (to a large degree) and the third base coach (because of his job sending runners home or not). The other coaches are easily replaceable and don't have very much impact on the success or failure of the players. 

    For obvious reasons, the pitching coach is a key position. Dealing with the pitchers is one of the most important aspects of an organization. This is why the Cardinals have been so successful under Dave Duncan----he can make something out of nothing and fix issues with upper echelon talent.

    As for the other coaches? The hitting coach is only given credit if what he says works. If he provides a tip or spots a flaw and mentions it to a hitter and said hitter goes on a tear, then he's a good hitting coach; otherwise, he's more of a sounding board and an overseer. Veteran players take advice at their convenience. The bench coach? He's only useful if the manager listens to him and, in general, the manager has already made his decision before even discussing it with his bench coach. The bench coach is a security blanket/friend. 

    So if the Mets are trying to sell the idea that making changes for appearance-sake are going to solve what was wrong with the manager and coaching staff this season, think again. Since they're bringing back the same cast that was running things in the dugout, GM Omar Minaya had better have some big time moves on his agenda or the Mets are already in trouble for 2010.

• Viewer Mail 10.6.2009:

Joe writes RE statistical-based analysis:

Please explain in detail what your issue is with statistical-based analysis. Please try to avoid simple talking points like "the Oakland A's suck" and "VORP bad" and try to provide some details.

Is it your position that a high OBP is bad? Is it your position that players who create more runs than other players are bad?

If you want to point to a previous post on this subject, that's fine. I like to think I can be open-minded and if you can convince me there is something wrong with using statistical evidence, I'm all for it.

    Has anyone, anywhere who's read something I've written ever read the words: "the Oakland A's suck" or "VORP bad"? I don't waste my time or energy or writing skills (such as they are) on that kind of nonsense.

    This implication that I'm some crusty, Bob Feller-style miserable old bastard who doesn't want to hear about anything that's happened after 1985 is a total misconception probably because they've never taken the time to read what I write. Not only do I use statistics, but I don't think any organization can effectively function without a group of stat zombies analyzing and crunching numbers. In today's game it would be idiotic to ignore the stats----old and new----that are popping up every day.

    My issue with stat-based analysis is not the endeavor in and of itself, but the way the adherence to the numbers, computer printouts and "optimal" usage for players has permeated the game and taken experience, knowledge (about players and people) away, ignoring and ridiculing those that look at other aspects because there's no "hard data" to quantify them. There's nothing wrong with statistical evidence as long as it's not used at the expense of other methods of building a team; methods that have just as much----and sometimes more----value. Sometimes a veteran scout's eye is a better judge of a player than said player's numbers. He might like the way a player moves; runs; throws; or even behaves----there's nothing wrong with that and it's worked before.  

    The arrogance and pomposity inherent with the new blood that's infecting the game has degenerated us into the current situation. Warring factions within organizations unable to find common ground; people thinking that because they can read numbers from a sheet that they can tell an experienced and successful baseball man what to do and getting abusive when they're dismissed; using numbers as the end-all, be-all when flexibility and interpretive skill is required----all have created this battle between belief systems where they shouldn't be one.

    This idea----that gained prominence in the farce that is Moneyball----that the Ivy League educated "geniuses" are going to reinvent a game that's impossible to quantify was absurd on the surface. No one is dismissing the importance of a high on base percentage; but it's not the final word in all things. Sometimes chances have to be taken that aren't cut and dried in the numbers.

    Have the Yankees had success with their research and development in how to use Joba Chamberlain? On paper, they insist what they're doing is right, but what about in practice? Has it worked? Would Chamberlain be better if they loosened up a bit, lost their paranoia and let him pitch?

    Did the Mets make a mistake in trading a player they didn't want in Ryan Church for Jeff Francoeur? All we heard at the time was how much of a "better" player Church is than Francoeur; but what did Church do for the Braves? Almost nothing. Francoeur, aggravating because of his lack of patience, is five years younger and is a thoroughbred who needs to be bridled. The Mets may not be able to tame him, but if they do, they'll have an MVP-quality talent who lit up the clubhouse with his personality, hustle and enthusiasm. It's not just about OBP. It's about building a team of people. It's about maximizing what a player can do and using him accordingly instead of dismissing and dumping him for what he can't do.  

    The stats aren't the problem; the people who are elbowing their way into the game armed with no knowledge aside from numbers are. If you look at the comments on BBTF about whatever subject is broached, there's no discussion; no exchange of ideas; no debate----just lame attempts at abuse and it's not helping the cause for those who believe in statistics. The reasonable stat people know that there's more to building a team than just applying numbers----it's failed miserably when it's been attempted most notably with Paul DePodesta and the Dodgers and Sandy Alderson with the Padres.

    As long as the situation is "us against them" with no room for consensus, nothing's going to change and neither side will gain anything from such a war of attrition until one side is completely dead. Both schools of thought should agree that that won't help anyone or advance either side of the debate and until this condescension and arrogance ends such a consensus won't be reached.

Jane Heller at Confessions of a She-Fan writes RE Mariano Rivera:

Couldn't get on your blogspot site today (maybe you typed in the wrong url?), so here I am. I sure wish Mo could win the CY Young. What other pitcher has had his amazing consistency over such a long period of time? Doesn't that count for something?

    Wrong url? The Prince has never (to my knowledge) made a mistake; I doubt I'd start there. I think Blogspot was having trouble yesterday. 

    Rivera's time to win was 2005. He got screwed out of it because of those that are hypnotized by the "magic" number of 20 wins (achieved by CYA winner from that year Bartolo Colon); and those that don't believe a reliever deserves the award under any circumstances. For him to win in the twilight of his career, it would take a seriously down year from starting pitchers and he'd have to dominate as he always has. He'll get his reward for the consistency in the Hall of Fame, but he should have at least on CYA on his resume and that should've been in 2005.

    As promised, here are my 2009 National League award winners.

MVP: Albert Pujols, St. Louis Cardinals

    Pujols again functioned for much of the season with little-to-no protection in the Cardinals lineup and still put up Joe DiMaggio-type numbers. We're in the midst of watching the best right-handed hitter in the history of the game. It's one things to put up consistent numbers; it's another to put up consistent numbers that are so good that if there was a higher league, Pujols would've been sent there long ago, and that league would try to find an even higher league to challenge him.

    One thing to watch with Pujols that's not mentioned often enough is how many of his hits are straight back up the middle. If anything's an indication of how well a hitter is seeing the ball and how good his timing is, it's that; and the majority of Pujols's hits go straight back up the middle.

2. Hanley Ramirez, Florida Marlins

    Ramirez is a strange hitter in that he's notoriously aggressive, but doesn't strike out an absurd amount (101) and gets enough hits to have an on base percentage over .400 while not taking that many walks (61 with 14 intentional). In the non-steroid era and with guys in front of him who'll get on base, Ramirez is a triple crown threat who could also steal 50 bases and win a Gold Glove. (Speaking of which, his defense improved by a lot this year.)

3. Troy Tulowitzki, Colorado Rockies

    It was no coincidence that Tulowitzki got hot when manager Clint Hurdle was fired and that after he got hot, the team took off. What went on between player and manager is anyone's guess; they obviously couldn't co-exist any longer. My guess is it was a father/son relationship that had run its course. After a rotten, injury-plagued 2008 and terrible start in 2009, many were wondering if Tulowitzki was another Joe Charboneau, but under new manager Jim Tracy, he again became a reasonable heir apparent to Derek Jeter as the glue of his club at shortstop.  

4. Ryan Howard, Philadelphia Phillies

    Reggie Jackson once said, "home run hitters drive Cadillacs" when it was a big deal to drive a Cadillac. Ryan Howard would be driving a Cadillac if it was still a big deal to be driving a Cadillac.

5. Adrian Gonzalez, San Diego Padres

    What would this poor guy do if he was: A) in a decent----not good, just decent----lineup; B) was in a hitter's park; and C) played for a better team? Gonzalez is Pujols-light in the power/threat department, except he's functioning with a clueless manager and rebuilding club. He's a great fielder too.

Note: I picked Ramirez to win the MVP in my book.

Cy Young Award: Tim Lincecum, San Francisco Giants

    Because he only won 15 games, he's probably going to get screwed out of his second straight piece of hardware, but if he was on a team that could score, he would've won 23 games. He led the league in strikeouts; was second in ERA; led the league in complete games and shutouts (4 and 2----it's the era we live in) and was a durable horse. Lincecum is a small package of power like Seabiscuit and may go down in history in a similar fashion.

2. Adam Wainwright, St. Louis Cardinals

    Wainwright gets the nod as runner up over teammate Chris Carpenter because he's been consistent and durable for the whole season. He pounds the strike zone, doesn't give up many homers; racks up the strikeouts and keeps his team in the game. He got screwed out of his 20th win by the Cardinals bullpen and I'm sure no one felt worse about it than manager Tony La Russa; probably far worse than Wainwright in fact.

3. Chris Carpenter, St. Louis Cardinals

    I wondered a couple of weeks ago what Carpenter would be if he'd had Greg Maddux durability with his own (better) stuff. Carpenter is a great pitcher, but he's an injury waiting to happen at all times. He was masterful when he returned to health in May. Along with his more noticeable numbers (17-4 record, 2.24 ERA), Carpenter only walked 38 and allowed 7 homers in 192 innings. Ridiculously good.

4. Javier Vazquez, Atlanta Braves

    With a little luck and/or a better bullpen, Vazquez would've won 22 games. He was durable, consistent and had a big strikeout year in his return to the National League, regaining the form he showed early in his career with the Expos. 

5. Jair Jurrjens, Atlanta Braves

    I don't think people realize how good Jurrjens is, but they'll know one day; possibly as soon as next year. 

Note: I picked Johan Santana to win the CYA in the pre-season. He was on his way early in the year before the team behind him fell apart and his elbow started barking.

Rookie of the Year: Chris Coghlan, Florida Marlins

    Coghlan is going to be a star one day. He just has that look. Playing out of position in left field, he held his own learning his way in the big leagues and exploded in the second half ending with a .321 average and a .390 OBP playing for a contending team. 

2. Andrew McCutchen, Pittsburgh Pirates:

    I knew this guy was going to be a star the first time I saw him run out a triple. He ran more beautifully, cleanly and seemingly faster than Jose Reyes. He hit 12 homers, drove in 54 runs; stole 22 bases; batted .286 and had a .365 OBP. He's going to be a star.

3. Colby Rasmus, St. Louis Cardinals

    Rasmus didn't have a great year, but he's only 22 and hit 16 homers.

4. Everth Cabrera, San Diego Padres

    His numbers don't jump off the page, but there's something about Cabrera that I like and he stole 25 bases, had some pop and showed impressive defense. 

5. Garrett Jones, Pittsburgh Pirates

    A 28-year-old rookie, Jones came out of nowhere and hit 22 homers in 358 plate appearances. He walks a lot too. 

Note: I picked Dodgers pitcher James McDonald as the ROY before the season.

Manager of the Year: Jim Tracy, Colorado Rockies

    Tracy took over a floundering and moribund team and they exploded into contention and won the Wild Card. Tracy is liked by his players and respected by opponents. He was unfairly dismissed by the Dodgers and fell into a rancid situation in Pittsburgh with the Pirates. 2009 proved how good a manager Tracy is. 

2. Fredi Gonzalez, Florida Marlins

    I kept a close eye on the Marlins because I'd picked them to win the division and I do so love being right; I didn't see any reason for the current consideration that's apparently taking place on whether or not to keep Gonzalez. I think he did a great job strategically and handling his players. No matter what happens, Gonzalez won't be out of work for long and will be managing sooner rather than later. If he's fired, the Mets should look at him as a bench coach, but if he's out in Florida, I think he'll be in Atlanta sitting next to Bobby Cox in 2010 and will be the next manager of the Braves in 2011.

3. Bruce Bochy, San Francisco Giants

    Bochy was a winning manager for the Padres; he's a winning manager for the Giants. He's handled the pitching staff brilliantly and dealt with a popgun offense bringing the Giants into contention and 87 wins. (I picked Bochy to win the award in the pre-season.)

4. Joe Torre, Los Angeles Dodgers

    The Dodgers won 95 games with a short starting rotation and inexperienced bullpen. Torre wins now by force of reputation and that his teams play the game and behave the right way. 

5. Tony La Russa, St. Louis Cardinals

    What more can you say about La Russa? He's the best manager of his generation and is worth (at least) 10 wins by himself because of his strategic wizardry.

Note: Viewer Mail will be answered in tomorrow's posting along with previews of every post-season series.  

• The tide has turned:

    As another of their own----J.P. Ricciardi----loses his job amid incompetence, arrogance and inability to handle important aspects of running an organization; as Billy Beane's portrayal as a "genius" is under closer scrutiny; and as the truth slowly filters out and is gradually accepted among the masses that Moneyball and pure stat-based theory plainly and simply doesn't work, the stat zombies appear resigned to their fate.

    One interesting thing you'll notice in my posting yesterday morning (which was linked on Baseball Think Factory----a shout out goes to William Orton for posting it) regarding the misleading attempts to again promote Paul DePodesta for a job as a general manager was the lack of conviction in the comments.

    As ridiculous as they are, the zombies really do believe that they're right. They know nothing about the game of baseball aside from what pops out of their calculators; they're petrified of confronting me (or anyone) directly; and they're utterly clueless in understanding human beings, but at the very least, they've been passionate about what they say. In this case though, the fight seems to have gone out of them.

    In skimming the comments, I noticed the usual array of personal attacks; riffs on my website (go to the Blogspot site if you don't like it here, or don't read it at all; your choice); and detours into subjects that have nothing to do with anything----but there were only a couple who even dared to offer a lukewarm defense of DePodesta and his Dodgers tenure. The vitriol was gone like their heart wasn't in it. This, to me, is a resignation that they're losing the battle in the context of a larger war. The end is coming for them and the few that are hanging on are locked in their bunker; reminiscing about the heady days of Moneyball when "their" way was trendy for a brief moment, but that day is over. The truth is coming out and the era of the stat zombie is nearing an end. It's no longer a war of attrition and their reactions, insecurities and fear have me winning this fight.

    The end is coming as I continue construction of the ultimate weapon, the genesis of which is known only to a few key aides/associates; once it's activated, the debate will be ended once and for all. A new day will dawn as I consolidate my power and take complete control of your universe. The shroud of the Dark Side is falling. They know it and what makes it even more excruciating for them is that they can't do anything to stop it. 

• One battle is turning positive, while another front turns negative:

    My desperate entreaties for the Mets to make the necessary and ruthless decision to replace manager Jerry Manuel with Bobby Valentine is looking less and less likely as the club is letting Manuel take an active role in the formulation of his staff and the construction of the club going forward. They'll settle for firing/reassigning a couple of coaches as if that's going to solve the problem.

    Valentine is going to get another job somewhere. The Indians have interest, but will they pay Valentine as they're slashing costs? I dunno. One surprising club that is said to be kicking around the Valentine possibility is the Marlins. After the way the club contended for most of the season when almost no one (except me) expected it, and the job Fredi Gonzalez did, it's odd that the Marlins are even weighing a managerial change. I watched the Marlins for the whole season and thought Gonzalez did a great job and is a good manager. Never one to question the way the Marlins do business, I have to wonder what's going on behind the scenes in Florida. Would the Marlins pay Valentine what he'll want? And would Valentine sacrifice some zeroes in his contract to get back into the big league game for a team that has a chance to contend or might he sit out and wait to see what happens with the Mets in early 2010?

    There's still time for the Mets to seize the opportunity, but the window is closing rapidly. My guess is that Valentine will be back in the managerial ring soon wearing a Mets uniform or not. If the Mets keep Manuel, then they're all in with him. If things go badly at the start of the next season (and I'm talking the first two weeks of the season), Manuel's going to get fired. Isn't it better to do it now under these circumstances? Or are they going to make the same mistake the Mets always seem to make as they kept Willie Randolph when they wanted to fire him after 2007 and let Steve Phillips weasel his way into holding onto his job for an extra six months after 2002? Sadly, it appears to be the latter.

• Viewer Mail 10.5.2009:

Isaac writes two comments----one RE the stat zombies; the other RE Carlos Lee: 

haha, the guys at bbtf are so smart that they only copied a part of your post. They didn't include your explanation of why depodesta wrecked the team. They can be amazing sometimes.

You tweeted the mets need to aggressively pursue Carlos lee. Why?. He's better than the LF options they have of course, but his salary is pretty big, and if the mets want the astros to eat some of it, they'll probably have to give up some prospects, and their farm system is not in very good shape right now. And McLane's reluctance to trade his veterans for young players  might mean that he will want to get more than lee is worth right now.

    One word about the zombies being amazing: "sometimes"? 

    As for Lee, he's one of the most underrated hitters in baseball. Every year the numbers go up; he hits for power and gets on base at a reasonable rate; plus he rarely strikes out and is a better all-around athlete than people give him credit for. The Astros might want to slash some salary and Lee's making a lot of money. He's a better option for the Mets than Matt Holliday and I think Jason Bay's staying in Boston. Lee's not as bad an outfielder as he's alleged to be, but the Mets could deal with him considering the ground covered by Carlos Beltran and Jeff Francoeur. Lee's a good guy in the clubhouse too. It's something to explore very seriously. It doesn't hurt to ask and I think Lee would be a winner in New York. Plus, they can consider shifting him to first base since he's played there before. 

Jeff at Red State Blue State writes:

Embrace the stat zombie for being what it is: fodder. As for Towers, uh... thought that would happen a lot sooner. Not so sure I believe in the Moorad machine... yet.

    Do you consider my hands around their collective throats an embrace? If so, then that's what I've been doing for quite awhile.

    How much worse could the Padres be? Towers has been getting sturdy defense from the likes of Buster Olney, but 14 years is a long time and Moorad has every right to make a change if that's what he wants to do. It's his team and the mere perception of a new era in San Diego will only help the club after the way they've been run into the ground over the past few years.

*Note: My National League award winners will be posted later today.

    Even though there's one regular season game to go between the Tigers and Twins, it won't make a difference in my conclusions for the post-season award winners. Here's the American League:

MVP: Joe Mauer, Minnesota Twins

    Mauer's numbers are ridiculous for a player at any position, but for a catcher? Even with missing most of the first month of the season, Mauer set a career high in homers with 28, drove in 96 and batted over .370 for almost the whole season. A .442 on base percentage and that he's a fine defensive catcher only seals the deal. That his main protection in the lineup, Justin Morneau, was lost for the season in September only makes Mauer's accomplishments more amazing. 

Other candidates, in order:

2. Mark Teixeira, New York Yankees

    Teixeira put up great offensive numbers, played excellent defense and comported himself as a true professional while showing a feistiness that hadn't been seen in him before. 

3.  Derek Jeter, New York Yankees

    It's as if Jeter took the criticism that was levied against him for lost range to heart and regained his defensive quickness. He had his best offensive year since 2006 and again led the club with aplomb.

4. Jason Bay, Boston Red Sox

    He slowed down as the season wore on, but Bay carried the Red Sox early in the season while David Ortiz was in a fog; he also played surprisingly solid defense and is a better all-around player than anyone realized.

5. Miguel Cabrera, Detroit Tigers

    Cabrera quietly put up big numbers as one of the few threats in a top-heavy Tigers lineup. 

Note: In my book, I picked Alex Rodriguez as the MVP. Presumably, he would've been in the running had he not torn the labrum in his hip. In retrospect, the injury might've been the best thing for ARod and the Yankees as the club was able to start the season without the ever-present distraction that ARod's been with the wild off-field lifestyle and the Selena Roberts hatchet job disguised as a book. His numbers ended solidly anyway. 

Cy Young Award: Zack Greinke, Kansas City Royals

    Why is there even a debate? Greinke plays for a rotten team with a bad bullpen; his ERA was .33 better than his nearest competitor; and he was borderline unhittable for most of the season. You can make an argument for a couple of others, but not enough to deny Greinke of his award.

2. Justin Verlander, Detroit Tigers

    Verlander had an excellent comeback season carrying the Tigers to the brink of the playoffs. He racked up the innings, strikeouts and wins; and pitched deeply into games accruing massive pitch counts and was a warrior.

3. Felix Hernandez, Seattle Mariners

    At age 23, Hernandez blossomed and was right there with Greinke in most categories.

4. Mariano Rivera, New York Yankees

    Rivera gave up seven homers this year, which is a lot for him; but he also remained the most elite closer in baseball history. At this point, he'll never get his due with a Cy Young Award unless there's a horribly down year for starters or he receives a "lifetime achievement" award as Dennis Eckersley did in 1992.

5. Roy Halladay, Toronto Blue Jays

    Dealing with a collapsing team and non-stop controversy stemming from his embattled (and now fired) GM J.P. Ricciardi, Halladay went out every fifth day and functioned as the horse he's been his whole career.

Note: I picked C.C. Sabathia for the award in the pre-season and while he had a very good, mostly consistent year, he didn't pitch well enough to warrant realistic consideration. 

Rookie of the Year: Rick Porcello, Detroit Tigers

    Porcello was everything the Yankees wanted Joba Chamberlain to be, but wasn't. He showed stunning composure for a 20-year-old, was handled carefully and on pitch counts, but not overly babied and dealt with being the number three starter in a pennant race maturely. 

2. Andrew Bailey, Oakland Athletics

    Bailey had a fine All Star season after taking over as the A's closer.

3. Jeff Niemann, Tampa Bay Rays

    Niemann finally got a chance to pitch in the big leagues and won 13 games. 

4. Elvis Andrus, Texas Rangers

    Andrus dealt with the controversy of seeing popular veteran Michael Young shifted to third base to accommodate him and, at 20-years-old, played solid defense and stole 33 bases. 

5. Ricky Romero, Toronto Blue Jays

    The comparisons to Johan Santana were a bit much, but Romero won 13 games and helped the Blue Jays get off to their great start with consistency and more.

Note: I picked Andrus to win the award before the season started and while he was solid, he's nowhere close to being the ROY.

Manager of the Year: Mike Scioscia, Los Angeles Angels

    They shouldn't even have a vote for this award, so it's pointless to name other candidates. The way Scioscia led the Angels to another division title under his watch is nothing to how he held the team together as they were set to implode and cash in the season after the tragic death of Nick Adenhart. He's not just their manager; he's their father and his work prior to this season was child's play compared to what he dealt with in 2009.

• I grow tired of battering you----but I'll continue if you insist:

    Every few months another stat zombie pops up with a promotion/defense of former Dodgers GM and star of Moneyball Paul DePodesta; and for every interview, informercial disguised as even-handed analysis and outright ludicrous defense of this overmatched and overrated executive, I've retorted with little more than facts. I don't have to go over the top in a similar fashion to prove my points because truth is on my side. Yet again, as another GM job opens and DePodesta is perfectly situated to replace the fired Kevin Towers in San Diego with the Padres, it begins again. 

    Conflicting reports are surfacing as to DePodesta's interest in the job. Supposedly, he doesn't want it; but that hasn't stopped the staunch and irrational defenders who pose as cold and calculating statisticians from again advocating that DePodesta get the job. Again, I'll be more than happy to bat you around again. I'd be lying if I said I take no pleasure in it, but it's become tiresome. You asked for it. 

    Much like most of the partisan discussions disguised as analysis, in Matthew Carruth's blog discussing the Towers firing, he made the following statement regarding DePodesta:

Who is going to step into Towers role? Obviously the first speculation is going to point at Assistant GM Paul DePodesta, who certainly deserves another shot after being railroaded out of Los Angeles.

    Railroaded

    out

    of

    Los

    Angeles?

    Paul DePodesta was what? 

    He was railroaded out of Los Angeles? 

    And precisely how was he "railroaded" out of Los Angeles? Railroaded by whom? By the owner, who let him do whatever he wanted whether it made sense or not? Railroaded by the fans who greeted him as a conquering hero and omnipotent genius after the absurdity that is Moneyball portrayed him as a combination of Branch Rickey and Albert Einstein?

    These are the people who have the audacity to ridicule me because I expose them for the fools that they are.

    For the last time, here are the facts of Paul DePodesta's tenure as Dodgers GM.

    HE...WRECKED...THE...TEAM!!!!!

    DePodesta took a team that had been built the right way, with a combination of youth and veterans; who liked and trusted one another and their excellent manager Jim Tracy; they'd developed into a cohesive unit with baseball's best bullpen and were rolling along in first place, well on their way to a division title and built----built----specifically for the post-season with that shutdown bullpen when DePodesta detonated everything that had been built with one arrogant and stupid decision to trade baseball's best set-up man, Guillermo Mota along with team leader Paul Lo Duca and outfielder Juan Encarnacion for Brad Penny, Hee Seop Choi and Bill Murphy.

    No matter how much DePodesta denies it, the Penny acquisition was a precursor to spin him off to the Diamondbacks for Randy Johnson. Johnson refused to waive his no-trade clause and the Dodgers were stuck with Penny, who made one start and went on the disabled list. Choi was atrocious for the Dodgers and they replaced Lo Duca----the manager's favorite player and the glue in the clubhouse----with no-hit journeyman Brent Mayne. Oft-injured former second pick in the draft Darren Dreifort was inserted as Eric Gagne's set-up man, was horrendous and got hurt.

    The team held on to win the division in 2004 and were dispatched by the Cardinals in four games in the NLDS. The next year, the wheels came off. DePodesta stuck Milton Bradley and Jeff Kent in the same clubhouse ignoring any potential personality conflicts; spent a ton of money on indifferent outfielder J.D. Drew; lavished a ridiculous contract to keep Odalis Perez; and watched as the team stumbled to 71-91---after a 12-2 start!!!

    After the season, Tracy was fired. DePodesta's reasoning for firing the manager was that he needed someone on the "same page". Which page from what book is unclear. The impending hiring of twice fired and noted lunatic Terry Collins was the final straw for owner Frank McCourt, who made the smart decision to dump his GM before he could do any more damage.

    He was a rotten GM. His drafts were horrific. He was not "railroaded". He was ill-equipped for the job and has no business to even be in a discussion for another opportunity after what he did to the Dodgers in 20 months. Yet we hear it again and again from the zombies because they have something invested in getting another one of their own in the big chair for a club.

    And I've had it.

    It's enough.

    If you like being brutalized like this, then fine, I'll dole out the punishment, but I'm getting bored. Maybe it's time for you to try something new. Somehow, I don't think I've heard the last of this. That's just my intuition and it's usually right on the money.

• Twins 5-Royals 4; White Sox 5-Tigers 1:

    I've seen this story before with a club who shall remain nameless. The Tigers look barely able to conceal their panic and if history is any indication, it's going to be a bad ending.

• This is true, I guess:

    Bill Madden wrote the following in giving his personal American League Executive of the Year to Yankees GM Brian Cashman:

No doubt, Cashman will be accused of merely buying himself this accolade, but all three of his expensive free agent signings, Sabathia, Teixeira and A.J. Burnett more than lived up to the money...

    A.J. Burnett lived up to the money? Really? 

    Burnett is making $16.5 million this year. Has he lived up to that money? Granted, Burnett's been healthy; and when he's on, he's all but unhittable; but look at the overall numbers. 12-9 record; 4.10 ERA; 202 innings; 186 hits; 192 strikeouts and he's leading the league in walks with 96 and 17 wild pitches----and you see that Burnett is what he's always been. He's horribly inconsistent and you never know from one start to the next what you're going to get. You can say that Burnett has lived up to his usual performance and be right, but worth $16.5 million? I don't think so.

• J.P. Ricciardi's career calling:

    Eight years were apparently enough time for the Toronto Blue Jays ownership to come to the conclusion that things weren't going to get much better for the club under GM J.P. Ricciardi. Ricciardi was fired earlier today in a move which has been seen by many observers to be long overdue.

    The accumulation of poor personnel decisions; bad trades; financial miscalculations; open disputes with players and members of the media; and repeatedly firing managers all finally caught up to Ricciardi. With the entire Blue Jays organization in flux and preparations being made to trade Roy Halladay, the clock hit zero on Ricciardi's tenure. The only viable question is: what took so long?

    It was with much bluster that Ricciardi arrived in Toronto in 2001 having made his name as the Director of Player Personnel for the Oakland Athletics under Billy Beane. The Blue Jays had hoped to hire Beane assistant Paul DePodesta, but when he declined the offer, they moved to the next man in the Athletics hierarchy and that was Ricciardi. Ricciardi immediately informed Blue Jays CEO Paul Beeston that the club was spending too much money and he'd make them cheaper and better rapidly.

    In the ensuing eight years, the team was relentlessly mediocre. Occasionally terrible, mostly better than average, but never true contenders, under Ricciardi they made some ghastly personnel decisions that contributed to the club's reputation as one that would end the season with a respectable record more often than not, but would never be a legitimate threat for a playoff run.

    After dispatching players that didn't fit into Ricciardi's Moneyball template of on base percentage and power, he began spending lavishly on such free agents as B.J. Ryan and A.J. Burnett. Both fit in with the Blue Jays as they performed brilliantly at times and were injured for long stretches. The biggest gaffes of Ricciardi's tenure were made with homegrown Blue Jays Vernon Wells and Chris Carpenter.

    Wells was heading for free agency after the 2006 season and Ricciardi signed him to a 7-year, $126 million contract to keep him. The epitome of the pretty good player who was lavished with great player money, Wells has been injured and put up weak numbers since receiving that contract. Carpenter was abused by old-school manager Carlos Tosca, then released when his shoulder finally gave out in 2002. The Cardinals signed Carpenter, rehabilitated him and he developed into a Cy Young Award winner.

    It wasn't just the personnel moves that doomed Ricciardi. The chip on his shoulder in dealings with the media (continuously insisting that some were "out to get him"); disputes with his own players (A.J. Burnett and Frank Thomas to name two); and opposing players (Adam Dunn) cast a pall over his tenure and gave him a reputation as a hothead who didn't think before he spoke.

    Those mistakes and that he employed four different managers in his eight years and displayed rampant paranoia were bad enough; but it was the inability to trade Roy Halladay at mid-season 2009 that sealed Ricciardi's fate.

    Roy Halladay had been nothing but a loyal Blue Jay during his entire career. Signing for below market value to stay, sitting quietly while the team never once contended as he was racking up wins and innings and garnering a reputation as one of the guttiest and most durable pitchers of this era, Halladay had finally had enough and politely asked to be traded in mid-2009. Ricciardi sifted through the offers and----with demands befitting a star pitcher under contract through 2010----turned down every lucrative offer that came his way, claiming that teams such as the Phillies hadn't offered enough. The Phillies instead traded for another former Cy Young Award winner in the Indians Cliff Lee, leaving Ricciardi with a disgruntled ace whose value was sure to decline.

    In the end, the Blue Jays collapse from a team that was 13 games over .500 and in first place on May 18th to the monstrosity they've been over the last three months of the season was enough of a reason to make a change in the GM's office; but it's more likely that the way the Blue Jays players appeared to quit over the last month-and-a-half, along with the reality that Ricciardi could not be allowed to make such an important trade for the future of the franchise spurred interim CEO Beeston to make the decision to dismiss Ricciardi.

    Considering his track record on and off the field, this should've happened long ago and the club will be better for it both on and off the field in perception and practice.

• Padres fire GM Kevin Towers:

    Numerous reports are saying that the Padres have fired longtime GM Kevin Towers.

    Towers has been the Padres GM since 1995 and has had what could only be classified as reasonable success on the field. Teams could do worse than four division titles and one World Series appearance over a GM's tenure. (Teams have done worse over certain tenures.) Towers endured payroll fluctuations; teardowns; rebuilding projects; new owners; and heavyhanded bosses. The most impressive thing he accomplished was a simple one: he survived.

    Towers is the epitome of the faceless executive whose clubs had success when he was allowed to spend money. Aside from that, he dealt with the repeated financially motivated dismantling of what had once been good and/or respectable clubs----and he survived.

    He was just sort of there, unnoticed until he made some gaffe that became the subject of ridicule. Towers was nearly fired in the midst of the Padres pennant-winning season of 1998 when he claimed the lofty contract of shot reliever Randy Myers off waivers from the Blue Jays to prevent him from ending up with the Braves, and the Blue Jays simply gave Myers----and his contract with over $12 million remaining----to the Padres. Towers never distinguished himself as an executive save for that one admirable aspect----he survived.

    The Padres of the past several seasons were generally the best of a weak lot in the NL West. They won back-to-back division titles in 2005 and 2006 and were quickly dispatched in the first round of the playoffs. Towers's ability to hold onto his job couldn't have been more evident as when a notorious micormanaging boss and facilitator of inter-office turf wars, Sandy Alderson took over as club CEO in 2005. Alderson's modus operandi is to run things from his own office with various minions implementing his demands each from a different fiefdom.

    Like a King or dictator who takes credit when things go well and allocates blame when they don't, Alderson peppered his dialogue with slick language designed to say nothing at all. Towers's cohort in running the Padres was respected manager Bruce Bochy, but Bochy was resistant to the stat based theories espoused by Alderson and his flunky Paul DePodesta. By mutual decision, Bochy left to join the San Francisco Giants after the 2006 season. If Alderson (and presumably Towers) had his way, the GM would've preceded him by a year. 

    Towers was widely expected to be hired by the now-Padres owner Jeff Moorad to be the GM of the Arizona Diamondbacks when Moorad ran that organization. The reorganization of the Padres was marginalizing Towers and Alderson wanted someone who would do as he was told in the GM office. Moorad instead hired Josh Byrnes as his GM and Towers was left with the choice: stay in San Diego; get with the program; go along to get along; and deal with the Alderson way of running things or leave.

    He chose to stay.

    In other words, he survived.

    This move is somewhat surprising in that Moorad had gone out of his way to keep a majority of the dysfunctional Padres front office intact after the departure of Alderson. The delegation of duties of DePodesta and VP of scouting Grady Fuson has made things function more agreeably in San Diego and Towers had been praised repeatedly by the new owner. Another surprising decision, given this turn of events, was the contract extension doled out to overmatched manager Bud Black. One would think that if this was a possibility that Moorad wouldn't hamstring whomever replaces Towers by force-feeding a manager on the new GM.

    Therein lies a concern for Padres fans.

    If Moorad is keeping the manager, that could be an indication that he intends to promote someone from within the current Padres hierarchy to take over for Towers. If that someone is DePodesta, then the Padres are in deep, deep trouble judging from the way he took a Dodgers team that was on the verge of a championship and, in 20 months, demolished the roster with a series of ill-thought-out trades and alienated and fired the soon-to-be Manager of the Year in the National League, Jim Tracy. Padres fans had better hope that the widely respected assistant GM in Arizona, Jerry DiPoto is the choice. Then again, anyone would be a better option than DePodesta.

    Things could be much worse in San Diego. They've outplayed expectations and have some impressive young talent if they don't make the colossal mistake of installing DePodesta as Towers's replacement.

    As for Towers, he'll get a job as an assistant somewhere and maybe eventually another chance as a GM. He's able to do the job as an empty suit; that's more than can be said for a large chunk of GMs and would-be GMs in the game today.

    Towers is the first of the "survivor" style GMs to go. He's lasted this long through sheer luck and instinct and his luck ran out. Blue Jays GM J.P. Ricciardi is expected to be the next of these GMs----hard to pigeonhole as incompetent, but probably not qualified to run a club effectively---to go as soon as the season's over. There are worse things to put on one's resume than the following two words: he survived. Towers and Ricciardi can take solace in that. For what it's worth.

• Ghosts of Philip Humber, Julio Valera and Salamon Torres:

    Questions surround Tigers manager Jim Leyland's decision to start rookie Alfredo Figaro in today's game against the White Sox----a game that, if the Tigers lose would possibly put them in a flat-footed tie with the Twins if the Twins beat Zack Greinke and the Royals. The argument for Figaro sort of makes sense; the club rightfully doesn't want to push 20-year-old rookie Rick Porcello by using him on short rest.*

*Just because I'm adamantly opposed to the Joba Rules/JOBA RUINATION of Joba Chamberlain, that doesn't mean I'm for abusing the youngsters for the sake of one game.

    But this decision has the potential to explode directly in Leyland's face. Teams have made similar ill-fated choices with young pitchers before. The Mets did so in pennant races with Philip Humber two years ago; and with Julio Valera in 1990----both to nightmarish results. Valera in fact was forced upon manager Bud Harrelson to start in place of veteran Ron Darling and the leaders on the club, specifically John Franco, went berserk. The Giants started a frightened rookie, Salomon Torres, in the final game of the 1993 season against the Dodgers as they battled down to the wire with the Braves for the NL West title. Torres got shelled, the Giants were eliminated and the pitcher was so traumatized that he meandered through three different organizations and retired for five years before returning and forging a respectable career as a reliever that ended last year.

    In looking at Figaro's numbers, there's not much to go on in his brief Major League trial and he's been solid enough in the minors, but this is a disaster in the making. I've never seen him pitch, so I don't know, but judging from history, I'd start Armando Galarraga rather than Figaro in such a big game. At least Galarraga's a veteran who won't be spooked by the gravity of the situation as Figaro might.

• Jerry Manuel's bizarre lineup decisions continue:

    We won't even get into questioning why I was watching the Mets play the Astros last night. A team of psychiatrists currently treating my consigliere for her own issues (talking to a doll/alter ego is worse than my meager bouts of psychopathy) wouldn't be able to snap me out of whatever ails me.

    That said, would someone please take a moment to explain to me the point of Fernando Tatis still being in the starting lineup for the Mets at first base? Are the Mets hoping to see something over the last three days that they haven't seen before from a soon-to-be 35-year-old journeyman who won't be back in a Mets uniform? 

    Wouldn't last night have been a golden opportunity to have a look at Daniel Murphy against one of league's tougher lefties, Wandy Rodriguez? How's Murphy ever going to develop against lefties if he never plays against lefties? Tough lefties? And what about Nick Evans? Evans should've been playing every day for all of September either at first base or in the outfied. What more do the Mets need to see from Angel Pagan that they don't already know? Evans has been plastered to the bench for a team that has few prospects as it is; why wasn't he playing just to get a gauge on whether he can be a contributor next season?

    Does Manuel think winning one or two more games is going to gloss over his record this year? If the decision to replace him with Bobby Valentine has been made, last night's win won't change the outcome one way or the other. Tatis's name in the lineup made no sense and instead of bolstering Manuel's chances of returning, it only added another reason to the list of why he needs to go.

• Viewer Mail 10.3.2009:

Jane Heller at Confessions of a She-Fan writes RE a strategy for keeping me quiet:

You mean all we have to do to render you speechless is to say "Not....one....word?" Wow. That was easy! I'll remember that.

    Don't read too much into it. It was the delivery more than it was the content that shut me up. I'm much older now and more able to counteract such tactics.

• Two playoff appearances in three years are hard to criticize:

    I am not a fan of Rockies GM Dan O'Dowd.

    Before getting into the self-serving and somewhat out-of-line attempts to permeate his organization with players who adhere to "Christian values", we can simply look at the way he's run the club for the majority of his tenure. 

    Over and over again O'Dowd----who's been the Rockies GM for exactly ten years----pockmarked his first 7 1/2 years with the repeated altering of theories on how to build a club in the light air of Colorado. They went away from the bashers of Larry Walker, Andres Galarraga, et al to speed, gap hitter. That didn't work. They tried to sign big name free agent pitchers to huge contracts with Mike Hampton and Denny Neagle. That didn't work. They built through the farm system. That didn't work...until an unprecedented and borderline absurd hot streak sent the Rockies from a respectable season (for them, a team that had grown accustomed to winning between 68-74 games and going on about how things were "improving"----whatever that means) to the World Series.

    The unexpected string of good fortune saved O'Dowd's job and bought him some time; time that was running out earlier this season as the Rockies, after their stumble to 74-88 last season, started this season 18-28 costing manager Clint Hurdle his job. O'Dowd was in jeopardy as well, but just like always, he assigned the blame to others while making claims of personal responsibility. There's more to taking the blame than lip service and self-indulgent claims of "everyone's responsible" while simultaneously absolving oneself. Be that as it may, new manager Jim Tracy sparked something in the Rockies that has led them to a playoff appearance and O'Dowd will again be the beneficiary of what can only be seen as blind luck. 

    He's done some positive things in his tenure. He's built his pitching staffs in the way they should be built by finding scrapheap pickups and either sticking them in the bullpen or giving them a chance to start. Who could've expected such above-and-beyond performances from journeymen Jorge De La Rosa, Jason Marquis and Jason Hammel? The Rockies have developed a large number of players such as Ubaldo Jimenez and Troy Tulowitzki to name two; but either O'Dowd's dedication to Christ is paying dividends or he's really, really lucky. The biggest move that was made was the change from Hurdle to the superlative Tracy.*

*Each and every smart thing Tracy does makes former Dodgers GM Paul DePodesta look more like a moron for running him out of Los Angeles; this pleases me endlessly.

    It was obvious that the players had tuned Hurdle out and the relationship between the former manager and Tulowitzki had grown so rancid that one of them had to go. I liken it to a father/son situation where they couldn't co-exist in the same house. 

    There are worse GMs than Dan O'Dowd and I think any club, especially one with a limited payroll like the Rockies, would take two playoff chances in three years; but to give him credit for it is going over-the-top because the Rockies success emanates from the manager, not the GM. But the GM will undeservedly get some of the credit. That's just the way it is.

• Huh?

    Okay.

    Here's the headline and clip from an ESPN story that...well, you can judge for yourself:

Book: Williams' head abused at facility

The New York Daily News is reporting that Red Sox Hall of Famer Ted Williams' severed head was mistreated at an Arizona cryonics facility, according to details from a new book.

In "Frozen," Larry Johnson, a former executive at the Alcor Life Extension Foundation in Scottsdale, Ariz., writes that Williams' head, which had been severed and frozen for storage, was abused at the facility. Johnson claims a technician took baseball-like swings at Williams' frozen head with a monkey wrench.

    Uh. Yah. 

    I'm rarely speechless. The last time I recall being speechless (in a context I can discuss on a PG-13 rated website anyway) was when a co-worker of my mother happened to get caught on camera during a news story about an aerobics class she attended. I walked into the office and opened my mouth prepared to say something snide and she raised one finger and said, "Not...one...word!!!!!" That shut me up in a surprisingly effective fashion. I'm again unable to comment. But without going into detail of what they could've been doing to Teddy Ballgame's severed and frozen head, I supposed taking baseball swings with a wrench is on the low end of the spectrum, for what that's worth. 

• Viewer Mail 10.2.2009:

Megan writes RE the free-falling Mets:

They still make Frankenberry? Damn. Well, I guess the Wilpons are banned form eating Wheaties. Quite honestly, Minaya kinda reminds me of Count Chocula. Got milk?

    Milk? The Mets hierarchy abandoned the milk in July. By now the whole lot of them are preparing as a group to star as the newest posse of losers in the Captain Morgan ads for guys who literally couldn't function or interact in any facet of society unless said society was hopelessly and completely drunk.

Jane Heller at Confessions of a She-Fan writes RE Eric Wedge's firing and Joba Chamberlain:

I agree that the Indians should have waited until the end of the season to fire Wedge. What was the point of doing it now, with only a handful of games left? So silly. And stop saying Joba will never recover. He will. Maybe.

    With some managers who've given agita to their bosses, I can see twisting the knife a bit even though it's a prick move; but Wedge has been a loyal soldier. Why do that to him? 

    As for Joba? I think he needs to pop off a little bit to the media. Maybe if he realized that the club needs him to succeed and has put themselves into this position by babying and coming close to ruining him, he's got a bigger hammer than I think even he understands; much bigger than most young players have. What more can they do to him that they haven't already done if he starts flapping to the media about how this has been handled? 

Jeff at Red State Blue State writes RE the Mets:

Walk off grand slam. Ouch.

Okay, so say you get Valentine... then what? It's still the same busted, beat up team allergic to catching the ball. What would he do -- specifically -- to get those guys' heads out of their asses?

    The Devil's Advocate was a good film. 

    First, there wouldn't be the bizarre strategic decisions; and as I've mentioned before, Valentine never publicly took on a player he needed to succeed. The veterans who might be leery of him, Carlos Beltran and Johan Santana for example, would be left alone. Valentine, as Machiavellian as he can be, was in a position in his first tenure with the Mets that he had an adversarial relationship with GM Steve Phillips. Such would not be the case with Omar Minaya, with whom he has a very good relationship. 

    He'd light a fire under the fan base and would state straight out what players like Daniel Murphy are and aren't and use him accordingly. The bullpen wouldn't be as abused as it's been by the three intervening managers since he was fired. His sheer presence would get opposing teams and the media back on their heels, putting an end to the relentless ridicule the club has taken since their successive collapses in 2007 and 2008 and the catastrophe that is 2009. 

    The mental mistakes would not go over again; the injuries that have befallen the club this year have been so varied and extensive that they can't, by law of averages, happen again. Like Tony La Russa, Valentine alone is worth 6-10 extra wins if the players buy into him and he's supported by the front office and after this year, the desperation will be enough to allow that to happen if they have the balls to do it. 

David writes RE the Dodgers:

What is wrong with the Dodgers???!!!! Sorry, my questions are usually more specific than that, but we are aching here in LA over this, so pure emotion just came out.

    This is a hallmark of Joe Torre teams. Either they get off to a brilliant start, build a lead and hold off their competitors while getting everyone to panic down the stretch; or they get off to a rotten start and go on a late-season tear to squeak into the playoffs. Aside from 1998, this has gone on going back to his days managing the Braves.

    It's hard to pinpoint what the actual problem is. Could it be that he overuses his starting eight and his bullpen and they tire as the season drags on? Or is it that his old-school training techniques in spring training don't prepare his players for the long season? It doesn't really matter. Unlike recent collapses from other clubs who shall remain nameless, the Dodgers are in the playoffs even if they blow the division, which I don't think they'll do. 

    The key to everything will be Chad Billingsley and Jonathan Broxton and what they do in the playoffs. They're going to the playoffs. Torre's teams have recovered from late-season slumbers before and how they play this weekend is largely irrelevant. Save the concerns for next week.

John Seal writes:

Sorry to be a grammar Nazi, but you misused the word 'reticent' when referring to pitching coach John Farrell. The word you should have used was 'reluctant'. According to Merriam-Webster, 'reticent' means 'inclined to be silent or uncommunicative in speech'.
You could say "John Farrell's reticence regarding the Cleveland manager's position suggests he is not interested in the job", or "Paul Lebowitz is the reticent type unwilling to commit on matters of baseball opinion". Hey, even lies should be grammatically correct, right?

    Et tu, John?

    Like Caesar, I'm surrounded by enemies and something is underway.

    People spend their whole lives striving to be a Boss only to find criticism at every turn; every move is scrutinized and the power is occasionally not worth the fringe benefits of the job. 

    Ah, the insubordination and stress never ends. This has been a bad week.

    First, my consigliere has gone so far off the deep end that she's filming herself talking to a doll that she considers her alter-ego. Then, my Mid-West capo and what was developing into a valuable associate in Pennsylvania take turns and revel in battering me for the revelation that I occasionally happen to walk by the TV while Dr. Phil is on; and now my West Coast spiritual adviser is correcting my word usage. 

    There are two courses of action here. A bloodletting as an example to the lower level soldiers or a powerful statement to put an end to the questioning of my authority. A decision will come presently. The key word at the top of the page is "ruthless". I didn't make it here on my good looks. I could've, but didn't. 

    It ain't easy functioning as one's own editor and writing this stuff, making it coherent and readable. I'm pretty good at it, but occasional errors cannot be helped. Albert Pujols makes an out 67% of the time too.

    As for the debate of the word "reticent", I stand by it as the word is a synonym for "nervous", "sheepish", or what would admittedly have been a better word choice "hesitant". 

    The Boss has spoken. Let it be so.

• There's nowhere to hide:

    No one's going to want to hear the truth.

    Much like Lonnie Smith was deked in game seven of the 1991 World Series and didn't score what would've been the lead run for the Braves; or how Babe Ruth couldn't have hit the curveball Adam Wainwright threw at Carlos Beltran in game seven of the NLCS in 2006, Matt Diaz's baserunning mistake will live on in the minds of Braves fans forever.

    As their loss last night left them awaiting last rites in the playoff chase, the Braves have to pray that they: win their final four games against the Nationals; and the Brewers and Dodgers help them by beating the Rockies. Highly unlikely. In truth, even if they'd come back and won last night's game against the Marlins, the Braves playoff chances were almost gone anyway; but no team wants to lose the way the Braves did; to see their last hopes go down in such an anti-climactic and painful fashion both as a group and for the individual who'll be seen as responsible.

    The Marlins entered the bottom of the ninth inning leading 5-2 when a series of hits, gaffes and walks brought the Braves to within 5-4 with the bases loaded and two outs; Marlins manager Fredi Gonzalez yanked his closer Leo Nunez in favor of journeyman Brendan Donnelly with speedy contact hitter Martin Prado at the plate. Donnelly's first pitch was in the dirt and squirted away from Marlins catcher Ronny Paulino; Matt Diaz at third base hesitated, then took off for home----too late. The ball didn't get far enough away for Diaz to score and as he hit the brakes, Paulino had already recovered and was firing to third base. Diaz was nailed and the game was over. Poof. Along with the Braves fading playoff hopes.

    While not feeling sympathy for Diaz, it would take a truly hard-hearted person not to feel empathy for him as he was essentially left standing naked in the middle of the field making a mistake that was as understandable as it was devastating. On that kind of play, you have to either take off as soon as the ball gets by the catcher; or you have to stay at third. That he was the tying run with two outs only compounds the mistake and it's no one's fault.

    The indecision on the part of Diaz is a reason, not an excuse and he has nothing to apologize for; but no one's going to want to hear that as the Braves are packing their bags to go home on Sunday rather than preparing for a one-game playoff to enter the tournament. It's going to take awhile to get over it for Diaz and the Braves.

• Hit the Easy Button:

    Do you realize that Brendan Donnelly actually got a save out of that?

• The Mets are a train wreck:

    It's not worth it to go into detail of the newest and most innovative (to date) way the Mets lost yesterday as their plummet continues----unabated----getting swept by the Washington Nationals. I can't help but wonder what's going through Jeff Wilpon's head right now. What's he thinking as he sits at the breakfast table and prepares to dig his spoon into a big bowl of Frankenberry?

    Is he going to stay the course with what's gone on here over the past two months? I've said so many times what the club needs to do----hire Bobby Valentine----but there's still a feeling from those who cover the club that Jerry Manuel is going to be back, probably with a whole new set of coaches. It can't be lost on Wilpon how the injuries have had nothing to do with the comatose play on the field by players who at the very least should know the fundamentals and do the most elementary things correctly.

    What's it going to take?

    Another season full of disappointment and empty seats for the Mets to wake up?

    By then it will be too late, because Valentine will be managing elsewhere. Is Wilpon prepared to let that happen? To endure more torment a year from now? You tell me.

• Indians fire manager Eric Wedge:

    The Indians needed to make a change, but would someone please explain to me the point of firing a guy with five games left in the season----and then making him manage the rest of the schedule with his paycheck as a hammer to keep him quiet? To me, that's leaving the guy to twist in the wind after torturing him and administering to his wounds to keep him alive so he can suffer more.

    Wedge has a contract for 2010, so he couldn't leave now if he wants to get paid, but what's the point of this? Everyone pretty much knew Wedge was gone after the season and if the club wanted him to finish the season, they could've waited until Sunday or Monday to fire him. Just as it's nonsensical to fire what had been a loyal employee and have him escorted from the building by security (the Tampa Bay Buccaneers had Tony Dungy----Tony Dungy!!!!----escorted from the complex when the fired him), it's on the same spectrum of preposterousness to fire a guy and his coaches and let them continue to work. It's ridiculous, disrespectful and bullying. 

    As for the firing itself, what's happened to the Indians this year is not the fault of Wedge. From the beginning of the season, everything that could have gone wrong for the Indians did. Cliff Lee got off to a bad start; Fausto Carmona has lost the strike zone; Kerry Wood was atrocious; and the lineup was injury-riddled. It didn't work. It was time for a change in the manager's office, but Wedge is young enough (41) to absolutely get another chance. I wouldn't go as far as Ken Rosenthal in calling Wedge a "great manager", but he's competent and there are far worse managers on and off the field than Eric Wedge. Like Willie Randolph, he'll probably have to go and be a bench coach for a year or two before another chance arises, but he will get another chance. The players always liked and respected him.

    The talk of a replacement is centering around Red Sox pitching coach John Farrell. Farrell is a good man, but I'm reticent to hire a former pitcher as a manager. Aside from Tommy Lasorda, it's been a historic failure. Bud Black is the latest example of a respected pitching coach who has not made it as a successful manager and I'd have that in the back of my mind before jumping in with Farrell.

• THE JOBA RUINATION:

    Notoriously fickle fans are attacking Joba Chamberlain like he chews on the heads of kittens for lunch and performs experiments on puppies after dinner. 

    What's happened to Chamberlain is the fault of the Yankees and no one else. They've screwed this kid's head up so completely and to such a massive degree that they'll be lucky if he can recover at all. Ever. 

    But he'll be healthy. Mission accomplished.

• Viewer Mail 10.1.2009:

Jane Heller at Confessions of a She-Fan writes:

I think it's time for you to take to the airwaves, Prince, and start talking up your Valentine for Manager campaign. Get that internet radio show on the air - now!

    Could the planet handle such an event? I'm not sure. And I might get assassinated. 

    But then, I do not fear death. 

    Death fears me.

    Maybe you're right, my loyal consigliere.