The Anticlimax

The Boston Red Sox swept the Colorado Rockies in 4 games, their second series sweep in past the 4 years. Now the question is what will happen in Boston now that their underdog status is dead and gone. What will replace it? How will the historic behaviors and attitudes of New England sports fans change now that the central narrative of their favorite baseball team has been rendered obsolete?
I think the glory days of Boston fandom (somewhere between 2003 and the present) are over and done. As the Red Sox become the new Yankees, their nationwide fanbase, built upon the David .vs. Goliath myth, will begin to fade. The fire of the core New England fanbase, on the other hand, may subside somewhat, but will not be going away anytime soon. But the Red Sox' national (and international) following may be in jeopardy. As the central narrative of the team changes, the myth/legend that drew so many nationwide fans in the first place will disappear. This may not be the end of the world, but it may be bad news for the team's revenues, which may be cresting after several years of obscene success.
I'm not on the ground in New England to measure the energy of the Red Sox nation firsthand. But I wonder if the truly magical allure of the Red Sox -- which has existed in some form for 50 years, give or take -- has reached its peak. While there is every reason to believe that the Red Sox will be a juggernaut franchise for years to come, I think it's worth noting that in the future, our image of the Red Sox will always be different. And it didn't start when they reversed the curse in 2004 -- it started when they slowly and methodically demolished a lesser team in October. That, my friends, is what the Yankees do, and if the Sox continue to perform like this in October (and there's every reason to believe that they will), they will indeed be the New Yankees.

In other news:

• Grady Little gets thrown over for an upgrade despite not doing such a terrible job in L.A. I'm by no means a Grady Little fan, but he did get pretty shabby treatment. Granted, this is nothing new in baseball (or in life), to see someone get kicked to the curb just because someone better comes along. But it's usually handled in a more professional fashion. And the worst part, I think, is that Little was spurned for one guy (Joe Girardi), who didn't work out, and so then the Dodgers had to go looking for somebody else, because Little was, as it seems, thoroughly expendable, even if the Dodgers didn't have the cojones to actually fire him. It was Little who took the initiative by resigning, although he took great pains not to bad-mouth the Dodgers on his way out. I doubt I would have been so classy.
• And so, after unofficially getting the job a week ago, the Dodgers can finally admit the fait accompli that Joe Torre really is their new manager.
  What does this mean for the Dodgers? It means they'll have someone who will be able to handle the veterans and charm the media better than most recent Dodger managers. But it isn't such good news for the central problem facing this team: the tension between veterans and rookies. From any baseball point of view, the good move would be to kick Nomar, Jeff Kent, etc. to the curb and go with the youngsters, who are just as good (and mostly better), infinitely cheaper, and much less grumpy. With Torre now joining Ned Colletti in the MLB Over-30's Fan Club, the young Dodgers should be afraid, very afraid.
• In New York, Joe Girardi took the job that was probably his about two years ago. With Girardi, the questions aren't so pressing; most of the work that needs to be done to improve the Yankees will be coming from the front office and -- if Brian Cashman is calling the shots -- that's good news. If the Steinbrothers (so named by Rob Neyer) take over and confusion reigns, the Yankee's 2008 team will suffer. As for Girardi, he already has experience bringing along young players, and that will be priority 1 in NYC. A lot of Girardi's pitchers broke down the year after he left, but we'll just have to be hopeful that that was a fluke more than anything.
• Mike Cameron tested positive for a controlled substance and was suspended 25 games for violating MLB's substance-abuse policy on stimulants. Cameron, while taking responsibility for his actions, blamed an over-the-counter supplement. It's entirely possible that he's just saying this to exonerate himself, but it should be said that a mistake like this is entirely possible, given the nature of the MLB's testing policy and the borderline legality of a lot of over-the-counter nutritional supplements, etc.
• A-Rod opted out. I'll be devoting a whole column to that later.

More to come, with updates on options picked up and declined, as well as a revised look at the 2007-08 free agents.

"Patience"

Reflecting on the Sox' annihilation of the Rockies, here's a very insightful quote from Red Sox hitting coach Dave Magadan (excerpted from Jayson Stark's column about the game):

"For me, patience is not necessarily walking," said Magadan. "Patience at the plate is waiting for your pitch to hit. And the byproduct of that can be a walk. But a lot of times, you're going to hit in a lot of hitters' counts. These guys have a real good idea of what they're looking for, and they will be stubborn and wait till they get that pitch.
"They're going to make the pitcher throw three tough pitches to get them out. And when you've got to make three quality pitchers to get hitters out, it's tough to grind and get through the lineup. Every guy is seeing five, six, seven, eight pitches. And then boom ... one swing of the bat. It makes it tough."

This is the essence of plate discipline, which can't be summed up simply in walks and strikeouts. This is the quality that scouts look for in young hitters, which is why walk totals alone aren't always an indicator of a hitter's "discipline," as described above. And when you get a lot of disciplined hitters in the same lineup together, it's a pretty devastating effect, as I'm sure the Colorado pitchers would attest. The scary thing is that this isn't even the best offense the Red Sox have had in recent years; their 2003 order was one of the best offensive teams ever. But even if this isn't the best Boston team of our time, it's still a better team than the Rockies.

Baseball Prospectus gives the Red Sox a 71.4% chance of winning the World Series. I guess that's about right, but we can't take Boston's Game 1 performance at face value. 5 teams other than Boston have scored more than 10 runs in Game 1 of a World Series, and only two of them went on to win.

Tune in tonight for the first World Series appearance by someone named Ubaldo.

World Series preview

I know, I know -- it's unfair to send in your World Series predictions after Game 1; especially when Game 1 is an absolute rout. We were following the game during breaks at rehearsal, and at one point, Boston was up 4-1. The cast is mostly rooting for the Rockies, and while I don't have an active rooting interest, I'm backing Boston, since I think they're the better team (more on this later). One of the Colorado fans bet that the Rockies would tie it up in the later innings. I looked right at him and said, "I'll bet that Boston scores 10." They scored 13, actually, and romped to a 13-1 victory.
Jeff Francis took the loss and just judging from the box score, it was a typical Boston dismantling. They worked him to 100 pitches by the 5th inning and got 6 runs off of him. Then they got to knock around the Rockies' bullpen and soften it up for future games. Josh Beckett, on the other hand, gets treated with kid gloves so that he'll be fresh as a daisy in Game 5 -- if there is a Game 5.
Which brings me thus:

2007 WORLD SERIES PREDICTIONS:

Starting Pitching
Both the Rockies and Red Sox had some late moves affecting their starting staff. The Sox scratched Tim Wakefield, potential Game 4 starter. The given reason was that his injury still hadn't fully healed, but it's also true that Wakefield would have pitched at Coors Field (where knuckleballs don't knuckle so much), and the Sox have a pretty good alternative in Jon Lester.
For the Rockies, they added Aaron Cook, who's been out for some time, as their Game 4 starter. This is purely an emotional move, as Cook has been with the team for a while and has paid his dues on some bad clubs. That aside, Colorado would be better off with Frank Morales rather than gambling on a semi-healthy Aaron Cook, whose pitching-to-contact philosophy isn't the best plan against Boston.
Basically, the Sox do have the upper hand. Jeff Francis can nearly match Josh Beckett, but elsewhere the Sox have a pretty good advantage. I'll take even a B-level Curt Schilling over Ubaldo Jimenez, and I'd also prefer Daisuke (and his trappings) over Josh F'n Fogg. Lester probably has an edge over Cook in Game 4, but by then the Series probably won't be very close.

Bullpen
Both teams have excellent closers (Papelbon for Boston, Corpas for Colorado) but have also struggled getting quality innings from their middle relievers. It's hard to pick a favorite here, but I'm inclined to go with the Rockies; with Frank Morales pitching as a long man and Brian Fuentes as a setup man, that still leaves them pretty well situated. Just don't count out the Sox, either.

Offense
The Rockies are a good offensive club. The Red Sox are a great offensive club. Not great in the historic sense, but good enough that they're clearly better than the Rockies.

Momentum
Momentum is bunk.

Defense
Both teams have very good defenses, and I can't really see an edge here either way. The only exception is when David Ortiz gets stuck at first base.

Management
I'm not Clint Hurdle's biggest fan, and I'm not ready to give him my full endorsement, but a lot of the work he's done has changed my opinion of him. That said, the Red Sox have one of the best systems of analysis in baseball and an efficient and reliable means of implementing it at the game level. And a lot of that is thanks to Terry Francona.

Final Prediction
Boston in 5.

More to come: My ongoing (sort of) series on underrated ballplayers, a 2007 recap including all of my award picks, a list (and analysis) of the 2007-08 free agent class, and much more.

Managers

As some of you may have heard, Joe Torre declined the Yankees' offer of a 1-year deal to return as Yankees manager. The deal, which Torre referred to as an "insult," was for about $5 million, a pretty big pay cut from Torre's estimated $7 million salary in 2007. There were some performances bonuses that could have raised the deal to $8 million, but these were all tied to postseason performance. And there was a possibility of a 2008 option that could vest -- but only if the Yankees won the pennant in 2008. Torre, sensibly, decided not to take a big pay cut and stay in a job his bosses (GM Brian Cashman excepted) don't want him for.

It seems that the Yankees gave Torre such a low-ball offer in an attempt to deflect criticism for his departure. If they had merely fired him, they would be the villains. But if the headline reads, "Torre rejects Yankees' contract offer," then the heat would presumably be on Torre. This kind of thing happens often, where a company doesn't really want to fire someone, so they try to badger them into quitting to save face. Only this particular ploy was unsuccessful. All of the big-time analysts I've heard weigh in on the issue (Peter Gammons, Buster Olney, Tim Kurkjian, Tom Verducci) immediately blamed the Yankees and excoriated them for such a shady move. Any attempt to transfer blame from ownership to Joe Torre has failed horribly.

What will the Yankees do next? An ESPN Sportsnation poll has 57% of respondents predicting that the Yankees will miss the playoffs this year. With the departure of Joe Torre and the damper that puts on the plans to re-sign Mariano Rivera, Jorge Posada, and (potentially) Alex Rodriguez, fans are predicting a tough year for the Yankees.

But really -- what's all that different? I've defended Torre, but I think his greatest strength is in PR and damage control; from the perspective of just wins and losses he's not that special. And I think the team is fully capable of re-signing Rivera or Posada (and maybe both), especially if Don Mattingly takes over as manager, which is the most likely scenario from what I'm hearing (although it's very early yet). Next year's Yankees will have most of the same big contributors from this year, and many of them stand that chance of improving dramatically over their 2007 numbers (Joba Chamberlain, Phillip Hughes, Ian Kennedy). The only big threat to the Yankees' chances of repeating as winners of 90+ games is the possible loss of Alex Rodriguez. But losing A-Rod would also free up a lot more money to commit to Rivera and/or Posada. And there are several creative solutions to the third base problem, with Garret Atkins' name coming up several times (although the Rockies are unlikely to trade any key players if they win the World Series).

There will be a lot of drama and a lot of headlines, but the Yankee machine is still moving right along, and except for A-Rod, there's every likelihood that they'll be just as good next year.

Other news:

• The Red Sox got a big victory from Josh Beckett in Game 5 of the ALCS. I'm not quite ready to fellate him yet, but it is true that Beckett is quite the big-game pitcher.
  With this win, I think the Series is pretty close once again. The Indians hold the advantage with the 3-2 Series lead, needing just one win, which they may well get tomorrow with Fausto Carmona taking on Curt "This Isn't Your Father's Pitching Ace" Schilling. But the Sox got out of Cleveland and have two more games in Fenway Park. And if they can win in Game 6, their odds are much better for a Game 7 that pits Daisuke Matsuzaka against Jake Westbrook. There's still a lot of excitement here. And thank God, because there's nothing like 4 series sweeps out of 6 to kill some TV ratings.
• In a pretty darn unexpected move, Angels GM Bill Stoneman has stepped down from his position; Tony Reagins, director of player development, succeeds him. While I'm not a big fan of the Angels' narrow baseball philosophy of contact and speed, it's hard to argue with results, and Stoneman has had a pretty remarkable run of success despite not being nearly as famous as some of his colleagues. The knock on Stoneman, which is valid, is that he's always been far too hesitant to pull the trigger on trades. He's got a very strong group of young talent, but hasn't really leveraged that into anything else at the big league level. Still, he's done a good job with what he has, and even his big-money free agent signings have been relatively successful (pro: Vlad Guerrero, Kelvim Escobar; Con: Gary Matthews, Jr., Bartolo Colon).
  It's really remarkable how many long-tenured GMs have gone this offseason. Coming into the season, the longest-tenured GMs in baseball were John Schuerholz (Atlanta), Billy Beane (Oakland), Stoneman (Angels), Terry Ryan (Twins) and Brian Cashman (Yankees). Three of them are gone (and it appears they all stepped aside of their own accord). Other long-term GMs such as Walt Jocketty (St. Louis) and Dave Littlefield (Pittsburgh) were shown the door, although it was about time for Littlefield.
  They're dropping like flies in the front offices of baseball. This creates some job openings for new blood, as well as a change of scenery for Jocketty (I highly doubt that Littlefield will be a GM again).
• The Royals have hired Trey Hillman to replace Buddy Bell as manager. Hillman was considered a dark horse for the Yankees job, but maybe he got a pretty good idea of how the higher-ups treat their managers this past few months. I know little about him, so I can't say whether this is a very good move or not. Time will tell (and so will I once I do my research).
• The Rockies are trying to trademark the term "Rocktober." Hey, even a team of destiny needs merchandising. (I need to be careful, because they may try to trademark the words "team," "of" and "destiny" sometime soon).
• The Mitchell Commission report will be issued soon after the World Series, I understand. Word got out about a week ago that the committee would be naming big names that hadn't emerged in other investigations.
  Wouldn't a simple press release have been more appropriate? Why not just tell everyone that the report will have pictures of naked ladies in it. Maybe that will make someone care.

The ALCS continues tomorrow, which is surprising, because I thought we had another 5 days off so everyone could go goose hunting or whatever the hell they're doing during all these days off.

Citybeat response

This wasn't the first time I've locked horns with Cincinnati's Citybeat sports columnist Bill Peterson. Peterson's take on baseball is both old-fashioned and over-simplified, but I felt that he outdid himself in this week's edition of the Cincinnati alternative newsweekly. Peterson offered a flawed, skewed, and misleading defense of the Reds' hiring of Dusty Baker. Now, I often disagree with Peterson, but as I said, I think he outdid himself with inaccuracies and oversimplifications in the article linked above. So I sat down (somewhat fuming) and typed out a letter to the editor at Citybeat in response. (I should note that I have had one of my letters published in Citybeat back in 2004. That too was a response to a Peterson column. There, he stated that the only difference between the Reds and the Cardinals -- well on their way to 105 wins -- were a few relief pitchers. I blew a gasket.)

To the Editor:
In response to Bill Peterson's column "Dusty Baker the Right Manager for the Reds at Right Time," Peterson has unfortunately distorted the facts in his support of Dusty Baker, even going so far as to brand Baker's detractors "brainiacs and bigots." I'm used to writers polarizing issues and demonizing the opposition, but this is unbelievable. I don't think I'm a bigot, so I guess I'm a "brainiac," because I'm opposed to Baker's hiring as Reds manager.
I looked in Peterson's article for a reasoned argument in favor of Baker and didn't find it. His first mistake is to assume that he knows why us "brainiacs" hate Baker, devoting half his article to Baker's poor performance in the postseason. I don't care so much about his postseason problems, and (if I can speak for them) neither do my fellow "brainiacs."
The more substantive charges against Baker are much as Peterson describes them: "...that he works his pitchers into the ground" and he "won't let young talent flourish." Peterson then claims to examine the arguments, although he never mentions the latter point again. So let me present the "brainiac" side of the argument: Baker has a horrific misunderstanding of how baseball games are won, insisting on playing otherwise talentless speedsters while letting legitimate hitters sit on the bench. He doesn't believe in walks -- they "clog up the bases," according to him -- and thinks that a player reaches his peak "somewhere between thirty-two or thirty-six and beyond." Both statements are not only demonstrably false but potentially disastrous misconceptions for a man who has to make out the lineup card every day.
Peterson asks if we can name "a single pitcher, with real confidence, who Baker has destroyed?" I can: Mark Prior. But while Peterson mentions Mark Prior and Kerry Wood he then explains (with sound reasoning) that Baker can't be fully responsible for Wood's injuries. But he never mentions Mark Prior again. Prior had one really promising season, in 2003, before Baker's high pitch counts (very high compared to the treatment of other young pitchers) wore him down. We can't say for sure what derailed Prior's career, but there's a great deal of research proving that high or abusive pitch totals significantly heighten the risk of injury.
Peterson also mentions that Carlos Zambrano, another young pitcher who debuted under Baker, survived his high workloads. That's true, but it's not instructive. The old saying, "Whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger" does NOT apply to a pitcher's arm (just ask Orel Hershiser, Fernando Valenzuela, Dwight Gooden, etc.). And it should also be said that Zambrano has had injury and fatigue issues, even if they haven't significantly affected his performance (although just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it won't happen).
Then Peterson has the gall to make two statements that are not only patently untrue but so misleading as to question the process that allowed them to be published. Both statements are in one confusing sentence: "But then Zambrano is more efficient with his pitches for being less reliant on the strikeout." This is so comically incorrect as to be negligent. Carlos Zambrano is the ANTITHESIS of an efficient pitcher; only one pitcher in the entire National League (Jake Peavy, 4.1) threw more pitches per plate appearance than Zambrano in 2007 (4.0). In fact, over the past 4 seasons, only 4 pitchers in the NL were less efficient than Carlos Zambrano's 2007.
Putting the statistics aside, it should also be said that if you watch Zambrano pitch, "efficient" is probably the last adjective you'd use to describe him. He's regularly among the league leaders in walks AND strikeouts, which makes for a lot of pitches and a lot of strain on a young arm.
It's hard to understand the last part of Peterson's statement; is he saying that Zambrano is less reliant on the strikeout? Because that's untrue. Zambrano has averaged about 194 strikeouts per season the past 4 years, which is more than almost anyone else in the league. He's also not an extreme groundball pitcher, so he's not getting any easy outs there. I'd say that once again, the complete OPPOSITE of Peterson's statement would be accurate: Carlos Zambrano relies on strikeouts more than almost anyone else in the National League.
Peterson never does deal with the charge that Baker neglects young talent, but he does say that "he's never managed young talent such as the Reds will present to him." Again, wrong. The Reds have some young talent, but they're not going to be next year's Colorado Rockies, for goodness' sake. And the Cubs of Baker's tenure had MUCH more young talent than the 2008 Reds will have; those Cubs had Prior, Wood, Zambrano, Corey Patterson, Matt Murton, Mark Bellhorn, Ronny Cedeno, Jason Dubois and a number of other talented youngsters who were benched for such all-time outs leaders as Tony Womack, Jose Macias, Juan Pierre, Cesar Izturis, Rey Ordonez, John Mabry, Lenny Harris and a host of other players obviously unfit for regular starting duty. So while Peterson is right in saying that GM Jim Hendry didn't give Baker a lot of talent to work with, it must also be said that when Baker did have a choice between players, almost without fail he would choose the older and less productive player. If you can run but can't hit, slug, walk, or play defense, send Dusty your resume.
Peterson ends his article by attempting to dramatically polarize the issue. Apparently, "To say Baker isn't the right manager assumes the Reds are rebuilding. The hiring of him says they're not." Actually to say that Baker isn't the right manager assumes nothing except that . . . well, he's not the right manager. But I do agree that his hiring means the Reds aren't rebuilding -- decomposing would be more accurate.
But the worst aspect of Peterson's article is A) that he tries to polarize the issue and demonize Baker's opponents as "brainiacs and bigots," and B) his inference that being a brainiac just might be the worse of the two. This isn't just inaccurate and misleading, it's an offensive attempt to scare people with broad-based name-calling that does nothing to advance his argument.
I'm disappointed with Peterson but even more disappointed with Citybeat for letting this and other articles get published with what seems to be little or no oversight.

Aaron Whitehead
Alexandria, KY
(859) xxx-xxxx

Let's hope this one makes it into print, just so the Cincinnati alternative newsweekly of record has at least one dissenting voice lodged to Peterson's column.

The Boss has left the building?

• According to a report in the New York Post, George Steinbrenner has essentially given over day-to-day control of the Yankees to his sons, Hank and Hal. After The Boss went public with his displeasure with Joe Torre, there were some questions raised about the true extent of the Boss' decision-making power in the Yankee hierarchy these days. Those questions gained some legitimacy when the Yankees did in fact lose to the Indians, but it did not result in the immediate firing of Joe Torre. Torre may indeed be on the way out, but both sides are in talks right now, which is not what Steinbrenner indicated would happen.
  If Steinbrenner's days as the true power of the Yankees are over, it will indeed be the end of an era. It wasn't always easy, but Steinbrenner's run as principal owner of the Yankees saw the team reemerge as the most successful franchise in sports. He took home 7 World Championships during his tenure as owner. A lot of the team's success may have come in spite of him (for example, Brian Cashman's emphasis on the team's youth movement), but it must be said that Steinbrenner's agressiveness and his embrace of the free agent market (while most teams were still in denial) were instrumental in reestablishing the Yankees brand. The team is in fine shape and will survive the transfer of power, but it's worth noting what a huge effect Steinbrenner had on the New York sports world and especially on the game of baseball.
• The Rockies are outperforming even my expectations, as their 4-1 win tonight gives them a 3-0 lead over the Diamondbacks and an easy run to the NL pennant. In many ways, the D-Backs have actually outplayed the Rockies, but it has yet to result in a win. But considering all the good fortune the D-Backs have had so far, it's fitting that bad luck should end their season.
• In the ALCS, the Red Sox and Indians are tied 1-1 heading into Cleveland for Game 3 on Monday. The Indians kept themselves alive with a close win in Game 2, a game that showed off the Indians' advantage in bullpen depth. That said, I have to give the Sox the edge in the Matsuzaka/Westbrook matchup for Game 3, and maybe even Game 4, when a semi-injured Tim Wakefield takes on Paul Byrd. And given the poor performance by C.C. Sabathia so far this postseason (it looks like fatigue), I don't like the Indians' chances.
• BIG news came out of Atlanta this week, as GM John Schuerholz abruptly announced that he would be moving upstairs to take over the position of team President. Frank Wren was named as the team's new GM, taking over fully from Schuerholz. The last time the Braves named a new GM, another George Bush was president. The Braves have built up an admirable organization, but with the departure of Leo Mazzone, John Schuerholz, and Bobby Cox someday (Cox turns 67 next May), the remnants of the 1990s dynasty may finally dissipate.
• Speaking of Mazzone, he was fired as Baltimore pitching coach this week, after two seasons of poor pitching and little sign of improvement. It should also be said that Mazzone can't have been expected to stay long after the firing of childhood friend Sam Perlozzo as manager. While Mazzone's poor showing in Baltimore must temper our opinion of him at this point, I think he's still got some good coaching to do, and I expect that several teams will be after him this offseason.
• Any hopes of a grand reorganization in Cincinnati, with Tony LaRussa and Walt Jocketty riding in to save the day, circled the drain when news leaked out that the Reds have agreed to a 3-year managerial contract with Dusty Baker. I really think they'd be better off setting fire to the stadium. The only real hope for Reds fans is that Baker gets fired quickly, before he can ruin Homer Bailey's arm and give Jeff Keppinger 700 PAs.
• After years of being a stick in the mud, Bud Selig has said that he'd be willing to let major league GMs study the issue of instant replay. To me, it's just a matter of time, and given some of the woeful umpiring performances this season, it wouldn't really bother me.
  If the umpires were really thinking, they'd institute policies to police themselves and develop strict standards of performance. As it is, they seem to be sticking their heads in the sand and just waiting for the MLB to strip away their powers. The best way for the umpires to prevent the loss of a great deal of their power would be to voluntarily surrender a small piece of it. But I doubt that will ever happen.
• ESPN's Amy K. Nelson has written an excellent piece about the life and death of Rod Beck.
• According to baseball/business guru Maury Brown, Game 1 of the NLCS was the lowest-rated LCS game in history -- by a longshot. The Rockies/D-Backs matchup on TBS drew a 3.6 national rating. The previous low was 4.9. That's an amazingly significant drop.
  Not only that, but the previous record-holders for the lowest rating were both in the middle of a series -- Game 4 of the 2005 ALCS (a mis-match of a series that the White Sox dominated over the Angels) and Game 3 of the 2006 NLCS (Mets .vs. Cards). Ratings tend to dip in the middle of a series, especially if it's not a particularly compelling one. The fact that people have given up on the D-Backs and Rockies before the series even started is disturbing. And with the Rockies cruising to a 3-0 lead so far, the returns aren't going to be any better.
  What are the reasons for this? Well, the fact that the series in on TBS has something to do with it. LCS games have been broadcast on ESPN and FOX in recent years, and while ESPN is a cable channel like TBS, it also has a higher profile. And while I don't have the numbers on this, my guess is that ESPN reaches more households than TBS.
  The other reason is that the D-Backs and Rockies aren't ratings winners. Phoenix and Denver are actually pretty large media markets (our perception of big- and small-market teams in baseball have very little to do with the demographic realities). But both teams are new and neither one has a nationwide fanbase (Arizona has enough trouble getting fans in Phoenix to show up). And this isn't as important, but it's worth noting that the biggest name in this series is either Todd Helton or Brandon Webb, neither of whom are likely to appear in a Gatorade commercial anytime soon.
  My take on this is that the media's appetite for big-market teams has been profitable in the short run, but isn't a good policy for the long run. Instead of simply feeding off of regional passions by exposing big-time teams on the national level, baseball should be cultivating a league-wide passion for baseball. In short, they need to get people to watch baseball, regardless of who is playing. Right now, they're just exacerbating the problem of the ratings gap between the "big teams" -- the Yankees, Red Sox, Mets, Cubs, and maybe the Dodgers and Angels -- and everyone else. With this policy, the media has adopted an all-or-nothing approach to the postseason: either the right teams get in, or they don't, with the latter meaning pretty poor ratings. This is disastrous, and a better long-term plan would be to raise the profile of low-exposure teams such as Colorado and Arizona, so that when the postseason comes along, the network executives won't have to spend their time praying for the Yankees and Red Sox to win. Because the increased parity in the game means that we're going to be seeing more postseason series like this, and the networks need to accept this and work on selling baseball as an entity rather than just selling a few teams and hoping they win.
  This may sound like a long shot, but it's not. Everyone watches the Super Bowl, because it's the Super Bowl. Does it really matter who's playing? In the old days, World Series results used to be displayed in real time on downtown billboards with thousands crowding the streets to watch -- and this happened in all the cities, even if their team wasn't playing. All it takes is some people in high places with a strong vision to help restore the marketing of baseball as a sport instead of marketing a half-dozen teams and praying that they're the ones left on TV in October.

This would be even funnier if it weren't so true.

LCS Predictions

With an improbable win over the Yankees, the Indians move on to their first ALCS since 1998. I came into this game highly suspicious of Paul Byrd, but then my predictions haven't been working out lately, anyhow. Byrd wasn't brilliant, but he kept baseball's best offense to 2 runs in 5 innings and got the win. The Indians, meanwhile, knocked out Chein-Ming Wang early and kept on knocking homers.
When I saw Joe Borowski warming up in the bullpen before the 9th, I groaned and said, "Oh, no!" The announcers referenced the last time Borowski pitched at Yankee Stadium, on April 19, when he blew a save in grand fashion and lost the game on an A-Rod walkoff home run. I remember that one vividly; I was there. I like Chip Caray as an announcer, but right on cue, he talked about how important it was to stay with what brought you to the dance, or some other worn cliche. Borowski is "your guy," and if you don't stay with him, you're sending a message to your team. That may be true, but it's also true that Borowski sucks, is a borderline closer, and is the last guy in the Indians bullpen I would send up to face Jeter, Abreu, and A-Rod. The message Wedge should be sending to his team is, "I want to win this game." You'd think that would go without saying, but not in baseball. Keeping a guy in his defined role is what a manager does, even if it's amazingly destructive to the team's chances of winning. Anyone in the Indians clubhouse who thinks that keeping Joe Borowski happy is more important than winning the ALDS should get their head in the game.
Surprisingly enough, Borowski didn't blow it. Oh, he almost did. A little part of me wanted him to just so the announce crew would get shown up right then and there. But Borowski held ony, barely. Jeter popped up a pitch he should have hit well. Abreu homered on a ball low in the zone to make it 6-4. Borowski made some good pitches to A-Rod and actually got him to chase a ball out of the zone on a 2-2 count; A-Rod flew out to deep right. Why A-Rod is chasing a pitcher's pitch from Joe F'n Borowski is beyond me; maybe that's been part of his trouble this postseason. With two out, Jorge Posada came up. Borowski threw him what looked like the exact same pitch Abreu hit over the fence down the right field line. And Posada hit it over the fence down the right field line . . . but just foul. At what point does Mark Shapiro or someone come down to the dugout and violently shake Eric Wedge? Luckily for the Indians, Posada struck out, and Borowski got the 9.00-ERA save.
It should be said that the media is already preparing the goat horns for A-Rod. The ESPN article linked above makes him out as the clear villain, referring to "the latest October vanishing act by Alex Rodriguez, whose bat was quiet until a solo home run in the seventh inning." Leave it to the sports media to marginalize a player who goes 2-for-5 with a home run. Later in the article, talking about the Yankees' free agents, the ESPN article mentions "Jeter will be back, of course. But the hero of postseasons past had just one RBI in the series, hit .176 (3-for-17) and bounced into three double plays."
A note to ESPN staff writers: hopefully you're smart enough to realize the silliness and unfairness of demonizing A-Rod for hitting a home run while dismissing your hero, Derek Jeter, for hitting .176 in the series. Please be willing to raise yourself above the New York tabloids.

For the Indians, this is a great series for them, and it moves them to a very interesting ALCS against Boston. For the Yankees, this was a more dramatic loss than usual, as George Steinbrenner had already issued an ultimatum to Joe Torre to win or be fired. You won't hear me say this often, but I think that Torre's positive effect in the locker room and in the media outweighs his tactical blunders (why the *&%! is Joba Chamberlain pitching when the Yanks are up by 5?!). I don't see a significant tactical advantage gained by firing Torre (although it would certainly be a monetary advantage, as Torre is the highest-paid manager in baseball), so the team would, I think, be at a disadvantage without him. There are some free agents who have hinted that losing Torre would make them less likely to sign with the Yankees, but I don't think that's as significant as it sounds. Players say a lot of things in their walk year, but money almost always talks in the offseason.
And that is the toughest thing the Yankees will face in the offseason; free agency. The club has a lot of young talent coming up through the system to replace the likes of Bobby Abreu, Andy Pettitte, and Roger Clemens. But there's no one around to pick up the slack from Mariano Rivera. Even Rivera himself (who turns 38 this offseason) isn't a grand investment as closer. But an even tougher loss would be Jorge Posada. Posada, 36, isn't a safe investment either, but given the dearth of good-hitting catchers out there, the Yankees would be well-advised to keep Posada anyways. Even if he's not as brilliant as he was this year (338/426/543) who would replace him?
But the worst blow, of course, would be if A-Rod opts out of his contract (which many are discussing as a given). The only real replacement for A-Rod would be a trade for Florida's Miguel Cabrera, and that would come with a steep price in prospects.
On the bright side, however, the Yankees will be losing a huge chunk of salary in the offseason (Rodriguez and Clemens alone made about $50 million this year), which is not only a better move toward financial responsibility, it also gives them more room to maneuver in the marketplace.

****

So, now that the field is set, what are my predictions for the LCS?

ALCS: Red Sox .vs. Indians
You could call this the de facto World Series, since it's a matchup of the two best teams in baseball. A World Series against Colorado or especially Arizona would be anticlimactic for either of these fine teams. That said, which one is better?
I've got a feeling that the Indians will win. And I really would like them to win their first World Series since the Truman administration. But I just think that the Red Sox have too many advantages to ignore as favorites.
The Indians 1-2 punch of Sabathia and Carmona is fierce, and it's the one part of this matchup that heavily favors the Tribe. Even still, the Red Sox can pitch Josh Beckett three times in the series (Beckett was, on a start-by-start basis, just as good as Sabathia this year) and the other starts will go to Daisuke Matsuzaka and Curt Schilling. Both teams have a good offense, but Boston's is better, with a couple guys better than anyone in the Cleveland lineup. And the Sox have home-field advantage, which throws some more percentage points their way.
My last point is that the Red Sox have Jon Papelbon and the Indians have Joe Borowski. In a short series, the closer's role becomes ever more important, and with Eric Wedge unwilling to alter his usage patterns and put his best relievers in the highest-leverage situations, the Red Sox have a pretty clear advantage. At some point in this series, Borowski is going to trot out in the 9th inning to protect a 1- or 2-run lead and get thoroughly bombed. If you're an Indians fan and see Borowski in the game to face Youkilis-Ortiz-Ramirez, I urge you: turn off the TV before the bloodletting starts. You'll thank me in the end.
Prediction: Red Sox in 7

NLCS: Diamondbacks .vs. Rockies
I can keep predicting the imminent downfall of the Diamondbacks until the cows come home, but it doesn't mean a whole lot in the long run. Yes, the Rockies are a better team, but is that any guarantee that the D-Backs won't back their way into a pennant? Of course not.
While Arizona has the big advantage of starting Brandon Webb, they also have the big dis-advantage of finding somebody else to start those other 4-5 games. Because Livan Hernandez and Doug Davis are ticking time bombs, especially since the Rockies are a better offensive club than the Cubs.
Other than Webb, the only other advantage Arizona has is in the bullpen, although the Rockies' relief staff is pretty good, too, and has done amazingly well recently. I'll take Jose Valverde over Manny Corpas, but it's not a significant advantage.
In short, while I recognize the possibility that the Colorado pitchers will go the way of the Cubs and throw way too many easy fastballs to the D-back hitters, I just can't ignore the fact that the Rockies are the better team. I'll even go so far as to predict that the Rockies will make short work of the Diamondbacks.
Prediction: Rockies in 5

Good luck on the next two days of life without baseball. I'll miss the opening of the NLCS, because I'll be in Louisville to hear this man speak, and I'll miss Friday's ALCS opener rehearsing his play.

I start a new job tomorrow. Wish me luck. :)

Oopsie

Well, that was quick. Both of my picks to win the NLDS were demolished in 3-0 sweeps, as both the Rockies and the Diamondbacks sealed the deal yesterday, going on to the NLCS. For the Rockies, it's the first postseason series win in franchise history (and an impressive one at that), and for the D-Backs it's a pretty impressive return to glory, having missed the playoffs since 2002. It's prety unique for both halves of the LDS to end up as 3-0 sweeps. The only other time that's happened was in the 1996 NLDS (Braves swept Dodgers, Cards swept Padres) and again in the 1997 ALDS (Braves over Astros, Marlins over Giants). It's never happened in the American League, although this year could be the first. I'll wait until later to do my ALCS/NLCS predictions, but if things keep going the way they are, I won't have to wait long.
My AL picks are looking much better, and it looks like I was even too generous in expecting the ALDS to last very long. The Indians (with the help of a biblical plague) have taken a 2-0 lead over the Yankees, and it's highly unlikely that the Yankees will be able to win Game 3, let alone the series itself. George Steinbrenner made a statement today saying pretty explicitly that Joe Torre's job is on the line in this postseason. This isn't much of a surprise, but I am a bit shocked that the Boss would come out and say it.
As for the Red Sox, they've got a 2-0 lead over the Angels in the series, and they've got a 2-0 lead in Game 3, which is going on as we speak. Ortiz and Ramirez hit back-to-back homers, and Schilling is looking pretty sharp. I thought the Angels would at least be able to pull out a win somewhere, but now it just doesn't look like that's going to happen. I would very much look forward to a Red Sox/Indians ALCS, since it would pit the two best teams in the postseason against each other in a best-of-7 series.
More news:

• The Pirates fired Jim Tracy after just two seasons. This isn't a really big surprise, as a new management team often likes to bring in their manager, and Tracy hadn't done much to support his continued tenure as the skipper of the Pirates. Tracy seems to be a good guy, but his eternal optimism and odd tactical moves mean he's not the guy to captain a team that needs a strong hand at the helm.
• Option news: The Cards picked up the $8 million option on Jason Isringhausen as closer. I'm not a big fan of Isringhausen, who's had some good success as the St. Louis closer, but isn't a solid long-term investment. And with Walt Jocketty gone, I think the time has come to get rid of the mid-level salary drains on that club and just start anew under Albert Pujols, Chris Carpenter, and Scott Rolen. It wouldn't be a rebuilding, per se, just because those three players alone could contend in the NL Central.
• We should hear the fate of Phillies manager Charlie Manuel within the week. Manuel has taken a lot of heat in Philadelphia since his arrival, and with the disappointing sweep at the hands of the Rockies, there will be some pressure to get rid of him. But I hope that ownership resists the temptation to make such a short-sighted move. Manuel has his faults, but he doesn't deserve to be the scapegoat for the team's shortcomings this year, and I'm not sure he's done such a terrible job anyhow. And you can't underestimate the importance of just making the postseason, even if the Phillies fell short in the opening round.
• Is it too much to ask that the baseball media find a way to differentiate between Jeff Weaver (Mariners has-been pitcher) and his brother Jered Weaver (productive Angels young pitcher)? Because on two occasions now I've seen Jeff's name or picture imposed in place of Jered's. It's Jered Weaver who's pitching for the Angels this afternoon. Jeff is not.
• I'm liking the MLB on TBS, although there are some pretty awkward issues they need to get through. Their sideline reporter, Craig Sager (? I think) not only wears distracting suits, but has a lot of trouble finding the camera and asking releveant questions. Frank Thomas, their in-studio commentator, was apparently given no preparation or training at all for his on-air duties, and appears to be confused and lost in the world of TV broadcasting.
  But I do like the Braves broadcasters (Chip Caray, Joe Simpson) and I like that they're bringing in some good broadcasters from other stations, such as Don Sutton and the great Steve Stone. I'm not sure what they saw in Bob Brenly, but he's at least tolerable. And I always thought Tony Gwynn was underrated in the broadcast booth.
  Now TBS just needs to pull those ads for "Frank TV," because they've successfully convinced several thousand baseball fans not to watch it. I myself have seen the ad dozens and dozens of times, and I don't even watch all the games.

Back soon with more excitement, as it looks like the ALCS will be taking shape very soon.

Short takes

Well, so far, the NLDS is making me look like a complete fool. I picked the Phillies to win, and now the Rockies have taken a 2-0 lead heading into Coors Field. It looks like Colorado will win the first postseason series in franchise history. Here's a trivia question: Name the 2 other MLB teams that have never won a postseason series? (Answer at the bottom).
And out in Arizona, the D-Backs not only won behind Brandon Webb in Game 1(which was understandable), they've taken an 8-4 lead, knocking Ted Lilly out of the game in Game 2. The Cubs at least will be heading back to Wrigley for the next two games, but still you never want to be down 0-2 in a playoff series. And if they do lose Game 2 (which is in the 6th now), they'll be up a creek, because they'll have to beat Brandon Webb again in Game 5 even if they do win both games in Chicago.
I must admit that I'm amazed at the second-guessing that ensued after Lou Pineilla pulled Carlos Zambrano from Game 1. This is just insanity and misplaced anger; baseball fans should learn to accept a loss without finding people to blame (and boy, is Lou getting roasted).
The move didn't work out, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with it. Zambrano hasn't thrown a lot of pitches, but he is Carlos Freakin' Zambrano; you never know when he's going to lose it and give up some walks and homers (he led the league in bases on balls). Carlos Marmol has been brilliant this year, and he's a guy you can rely on.
I gained a great deal of respect for Lou when I read this snippet of conversation, taken from Rob Neyer's blog:

The Piniella quote that's all over the place this morning is in response to the press-conference question, "Lou, do you think you could be accused of looking ahead to Game 5, or Game 4, when -- "

Piniella broke in: "I'm not accused of anything, sir. I've got a good bullpen here, OK? I trust my bullpen. I'm bringing back a pitcher on three days rest on Sunday. I took a shot with my bullpen. It didn't work today. They've done it all year. I've got confidence in them. Period. End of story."

Even better is Lou's statement here, which does a great job of summing things up: "The reason we didn't win this game is, we scored one run on four hits. I mean, you're not going win on the road, you're not going to win anywhere, getting four hits and one run."

In the AL so far, things are going well; the Indians thumped the Yankees (ha, ha) and the Red Sox (and Josh Beckett) shut down the Angels. Peter Gammons has a good piece on this game, and while I'm not jumping on the "Josh Beckett as Mr. October" bandwagon yet, I was very interested in Peter's remarks about the scouting report on Lackey.
As for the Indians, things look pretty good for them. It's still an uphill climb, but it's a good sign that they were able to dismantle both Chien-Ming Wang and Phil Hughes. And it's an even better sign that they held the Yankee offense to 3 runs.

****

But no, the thing I really want to talk about today is the amazing news flash I read about today that Walt Jocketty is out as GM of the Cardinals. As best I can tell, the move wasn't so much a baseball-related move; there was something of a power struggle in the Cards organization as team owner Bill DeWitt had undermind Jocketty by placing his own man, Jeff Luhnow, as the head of the scouting and amateur draft side of baseball operations. This effectively cut Jocketty off from the amateur draft, something that doesn't really happen in baseball ops, much less with someone as well-respected as Jocketty. Amazing though it may sound, the team has decided to let Jocketty go (with one year left on his contract).
I don't think I say it enough, but I'm a Walt Jocketty fan. While it's true that he doesn't have a very strong record in the amateur draft, it's also true that Jocketty's built one of the most successful big league franchises of the past ten years in spite of the fact. He won two pennants and a World Series as Cardinals GM and has made a series of moves that have given the Cardinals a great pay-off in the long-term and short-term. He does have his faults, and I think he deserves some measure of responsibility for the fragile, top-heavy nature of the team's roster as it is, but really, I can't imagine how the Cardinals will be better off without him.
It seems to me that when you have issues like this or issues with control and power, you have to try to solve these problems before you're forced to fire one of the game's best GMs. Bill DeWitt and the Cardinals never should have let things get where they are, not to the point where they lost Jocketty. While there are a lot of people who deserve credit for the great run of success in St. Louis since 1996, Walt Jocketty is right at the top of the list. Where would the Cardinals franchise be without Mark McGwire, acquired by Jocketty for a song in 1997, a year before he single-handedly revitalized St. Louis baseball? Where would they be without Jim Edmonds and Scott Rolen, stolen from the Angels and Phillies, respectively, without having to give up much at all? And what about Chris Carpenter, who Jocketty signed in spite of his arm problems and whose faith in him was justified with a Cy Young Award, and quite possibly more to come. And I couldn't forget about Albert Pujols. While the Cards' farm system has been pretty dismal for the past ten years, their one success has been pretty good, as far as successes go.
Really, there's no excuse for this. Statheads and scouts both can agree that Jocketty was one of the best at what he did, and while we can certainly quibble with some of his moves and personal quirks, it's hard to argue that he deserved to be fired. The fact that Bill DeWitt was either unable or unwilling to resolve this inter-office dispute with Jocketty before it resulted in his dismissal isn't just a personal black eye for DeWitt, it's severely damaged his team's ability to field a contender, and that's the most important thing.

Oh yeah, and as if that weren't enough, it seems likely now that Tony LaRussa, a Jocketty supporter, will almost certainly be leaving St. Louis. The long-term prospects of the Cardinals without Jocketty/LaRussa are significantly worse than they would be if those two remained. It's possible that the team will be able to find somewhat suitable replacements for two of the best in their field, but they shouldn't have to. If the Cardinals' organization falls off over the next five or ten years, you can really put the goat horns on Bill DeWitt and whomever else thought that the team would be better off without Walt Jocketty. Amen, Keith.

And if you're a team that's in the market for a manager and/or GM, you might want to send DeWitt a thank-you note.

****

The Cubs have been retired in the 8th, so now they've just got one more at-bat to score 4 runs. The world won't end if they lose this game, but it will be pretty close. I'm just glad Harry's not around to see this . . .

(Trivia Answer: Tampa Bay and Texas. The D-Rays have never made it to the postseason, and the Rangers have only made it 3 times in their 47-season existence: 1996, 1998, and 1999. They played in three division series against the Yankees and lost them all. We need to think of a snappy name for a curse of the New Washington Senators or something, because the awful record of the Senators/Rangers -- especially in the postseason -- is starting to stick out now that all the other curses are getting broken.)

Playoff Predictions

NLDS

Rockies .vs. Phillies
A lot of this comes down to home-field advantage as the Rockies have played and hit much worse away from Coors Field than at home, even accounting for park effects. The Rockies' offense isn't quite as good as Coors Field makes it look, but by the same token, their pitching isn't as bad, either. The Rockies have much better depth both in the bullpen and in the starting rotation, whereas the Phillies' rotation is Cole Hamels and several guys who shouldn't be pitching in a fly-ball park.

Still, I can't get past the home-field advantage and the Cole Hamels advantage. The Phillies have the best offense in the league, and playing three times in their home park with an ace that the Rockies don't have is enough of an edge for me. I predict a lot of offense, but still some close games where the bullpens play a big part. If the Rockies can keep the Phillies' offense quiet, they might be able to pull one out against the likes of Kyle Kendrick and Jamie Moyer.

Prediction: Phillies in 5

Cubs .vs. Diamondbacks

This is probably the biggest mis-match in the division series. Not that the Cubs are that good, but that the Diamondbacks aren't. Arizona ranks 15th of 16 NL teams in Equivalent Average (.249), which takes into account their entire offensive output, which isn't very much when you consider they play in a hitter's park. The Cubs' offense isn't a whole lot better, but they'll benefit from the presence of 2 or 3 legitimate monsters in their order, whereas Arizona's best hitter is Conor Jackson (284/368/467) and their best player, Orlando Hudson, is out for the year with injury.

The D-Backs' best hope is Brandon Webb. Webb is the best starter on any NL playoff team, and if Arizona can win twice behind him, they'll stand a much better chance of upsetting the Cubs. The only trouble is that behind Webb, the D-Backs don't have a whole lot. It will be some combination of Micah Owings, Doug Davis, and Livan Hernandez, and that's not very comforting. Chicago, while lacking a truce ace like Webb, has a very strong 1-2-3 of Carlos Zambrano, Ted Lilly, and Rich Hill (it's the hope of Cub fans everywhere that Jason Marquis doesn't start in the series).

So while the D-Backs may continue to surprise me, just as they did during the regular season, I'm doubtful that they will. Because after Brandon Webb, this is not a World Championship team.

Prediction: Cubs in 4

ALDS

Red Sox .vs. Angels

This 2004 ALDS rematch will likely end with the same result. Because while the Angels have a better starting pitching lineup for the postseason, that's the only place they really have a clear edge over Boston. The Red Sox are the best team in the postseason, and what they lack in starting depth, they make up for with a far superior offense. While the Angels will be crossing their fingers over Vladimir Guerrero, the Red Sox will be pounding the ball with a deep and deadly lineup.

Also worth noting that the Angels' bullpen, usually their strongest point, has been less effective this year. The Red Sox haven't been excellent, either, but I don't see the Angels having a clear advantage there. And, man-for-man, I think I'd rather have Jon Papelbon closing than K-Rod.

The Angels' only hope is that their contact-hitting offense will be able to scratch across some runs, and their rotation will be able to slow down the Boston offense. And while I think the world of John Lackey and Kelvim Escobar, I just don't see it happening.

Prediction: Red Sox in 4

Indians .vs. Yankees

This may be the best match-up of the Division Series. The Indians are a well-balanced ballclub lacking any one strong advantage. The Yankees have a devastating offense but a pretty disappointing pitching staff.

I think that the Indians will win, not just because of their balance, but because the move to October will help them especially. They won't have to worry about a 5th starter, which has troubled them all season, and they will also have Asdrubal Cabrera at second and a (possibly?) healthy Travis Hafner. In short, the Indians are probably a better team than their regular-season record indicates.

The Yankees can mash with any of them, and with their offense, you can never ignore the possibility that they'll just club their way to a pennant by winning several 10-8 games. But I don't have much confidence in their pitching staff. Chien-Ming Wang and Andy Pettite are a decent 1-2, but they're no match for C.C. Sabathia and Fausto Carmona. And while the Indians' 3-4 starters (Jake Westbrook and Paul Byrd) aren't too promising, I'd rather take them over the unpredictability of semi-injured veterans Roger Clemens and Mike Mussina. Most every commentator this October will probably mention what a "hoss" Clemens is and that he's a veteran the Yankees can count on in October. Actually, I'd rather have a healthy guy who's actually pitched well this season. The good news for Yankee fans is that they've got some younger, better options in the wings (Phil Hughes, Ian Kennedy) if Clemens and Mussina either bomb out early or just can't pitch. And while you may have heard something about a guy named Joba with the Yankees, I much prefer Cleveland's underrated staff of middle relievers. Let's just hope that Eric Wedge has the good sense to use them in tight situations rather than "closer" Joe Borowski (5.07 ERA).

It will be interesting to see which way this series goes. But if I had to guess, I'll go with the Cleveland. They may not be the "team of destiny," but what the f*** does that matter, anyhow?

Prediction: Indians in 5

Back soon with end-of-year recaps, including my awards picks.

Rockies 9, Padres 8

Wow.

I don't know if tonight's one-game playoff will go down in history as one of the most memorable in history, but it should. The Wild Card isn't glamorous, and neither are the Padres and Rockies, but tonight was an incredibly exciting game for a number of reasons.

I must say that I was in rehearsal this evening and didn't join the game until the 8th inning, when it was tied 6-6. Amazingly enough, it stayed tied into the 13th. Both bullpens did a pretty impressive job of keeping the runs off the board. If Heath Bell is an unlikely hero, Matt Herges is even more unlikely, but he threw 3 scoreless innings none the less.
I knew it couldn't go on forever, and when I saw Jorge Julio stroll to the mound in the 13th, I had the feeling that this might be it. Julio, who was as wild as you'd expect, walked Brian Giles and then fell behind Scott Hairston. He then grooved one to Hairston, who knocked it out of the park, giving the Padres an 8-6 lead. The Colorado faithful went silent, and I figured it was over. (The guy who caught the ball actually doubled 0ver in pain when he did, even though it didn't touch his stomach). Julio gave up a single to Chase Headley and then was removed.
I was even more surprised to see Ramon Ortiz on the mound. Joe Simpson noted, incredulous, that Ortiz hadn't pitched since September 15. And there's a pretty good reason for that. Adrian Gonzalez was due up, and I turned off the game to go write a blog entry about it. But I turned on the mlb.com Gameday webcast of the game so I could note when it ended. With Ortiz on the mound and Trevor Hoffman waiting for the Padres, there must have been a 5% chance the Rockies would come back.
I intended to write my blog about Clint Hurdle's odd selection of pitchers. I felt that he did a good job of getting the team to the 13th -- even bringing in his closer with the game tied (something Bud Black never did) -- but that Jorge Julio shouldn't have entered the game. Desperate times call for desperate measures, and he should have looked to his starting rotation if the game was going to go longer. Better bring in Frank Morales than let the Padres face your 5th- or 6th-best reliever.
As it turned out, I spoke too soon . . .

When the webcast popped up, I noticed that Hoffman was indeed in the game for the Padres, facing the top of the order. Ortiz did manage to retire the three batters he faced, which is a pretty rare occurence. The reason I didn't watch the game was that I was, emotionally, pretty worn out by the 13th. I didn't really have a rooting interest here, but I was really hoping the Rockies would win, just because they need it a lot more than the Padres do.
I saw that Trevor Hoffman gave up a leadoff double to Kaz Matsui. Interesting. That brought the tying run to the plate, but no, I wasn't going to get my hopes up yet. Then I noticed that he went to 3-2 on the next batter, Troy Tulowitzki. Tulowitzki also doubled, sending in Matsui and putting the tying run on base.
At this point, I turned the TV back on.
I got there just in time to see the replay of Matt Holliday's at-bat; he had just tripled in the tying run. As if the game couldn't get any more dramatic, Holliday -- with the crowd chanting "MVP"-- went the other way on an errant Hoffman changeup and sent it just out of the reach of a leaping Brian Giles (this was fitting, as Giles had tied the game at 6 with a ball hit over Holliday's head). Holliday raced around to third as Tulowitzki scored the tying run.
How improbable could it get?
The Padres intentionally walked Todd Helton to face Jamey Carroll. With the winning run on third and none out, the odds were pretty good that the Rockies would win. But then Jamey Carroll hit .225 this year with 2 homers while playing at Coors Field, for heaven's sake. Surely he wasn't a threat.
Carroll hit the first pitch from Hoffman -- this one a fastball that caught too much of the plate -- to right field. The ball was hit right at Brian Giles, who was playing in. Giles caught the ball for the out, and quickly threw it home as Holliday raced in from third. The throw was up the first base side, and Holliday had it beat. He slid in head-first, and after a tense second, home plate umpire Tim McClelland called him safe.
Then, Coors Field went bonkers and several things happened.
The first was that Holliday, despite having just won the game and the Wild Card, didn't get up. He stayed on the ground and cameras showed him bleeding from the mouth. Replays showed that as he slid in face-first, his head bounced in the dirt, which looked pretty painful, if not disabling.
But that's not all the replays showed.
The announcers asked the same question I did -- why did McClelland wait to call Holliday safe? It's the 13th inning, and it's the most dramatic moment an umpire can ask for. So why did he wait a couple seconds and then blandly stick out his arms, as if this were some spring training exhibition game? I've seen an umpire wait to call someone out -- if they missed the bag and the fielder tags them -- but I don't recall seeing anyone wait to call someone safe. Why would you?
The answer is that Holliday never touched the plate. Never did. And the replays were pretty clear; Michael Barrett, no one's idea of a great defensive catcher, none the less did a great job of blocking the plate. Holliday's hand got stuck by his foot and never moved past it to touch the plate. And it seems obvious that Tim McClelland saw this as clearly as I did. He waited to make the call because he was waiting for Barrett to pick up the ball and tag Holliday -- who was three feet from home and bleeding from the mouth. But as Barrett was about to apply the tag, McClelland limply stuck out his arms and belatedly called him safe.
My first thought was to wonder if Barrett could sneak through the celebrating crowd and still tag out Holliday, who let the records show, never touched the plate. But the umpire already called him safe, so Merkle's Boner was not to be repeated (which is just as well, considering that "boner" now represents something altogether different).
My second thought was that McClelland had a split second to think, and chose to call Holliday safe even though he didn't see him touch the plate. The TBS and ESPN commentators were quick to point this out, so my guess is that McClelland's going to be feeling the heat in the coming days. It's fitting, I suppose, that a regular season that's seen such criticism of major league umpires (much of it justified) should end with a clearly blown call.
I don't mean to get on McClelland too much. Maybe he just changed his mind, or thought he saw something else. Maybe it's a lot harder to be objective in the 13th inning before a raucous home crowd than it would seem. If Holliday were called out, that would put a runner at 2nd with two out, meaning the 14th inning was a much stronger possibility. Still, this is another dark day for MLB umpires.

All that aside, the Rockies have won the NL Wild Card, and as I've said before, no team needed it more than Colorado. Everyone knew that they had a pretty good bunch of rookies coming up, but very few people expected them to do this well and outlast the Dodgers and Padres. But they did, and now they're heading to the postseason for the first time since 1995. Their 90 wins set a club record, as does their .552 winning percentage. Not only do their productive rookies get to experience October baseball before schedule, but Todd Helton -- one of the best players in the game never to play in the postseason -- gets to break that streak playing for his original team.
The Padres did their best, but came up short. I don't think there's any real shame in their collapse; their 89 wins are actually a bit better than I thought they'd do. I feared that they would lose the game in extra innings with Trevor Hoffman sitting idle in the bullpen, but they lost with their ace reliever on the mound. They couldn't have expected Hoffman to blow the save in Milwaukee two days ago, one strike away from eliminating the Rockies. And neither could they have expected him to give up three runs at Coors. Speaking of ace pitchers failing in public fashion, Hoffman joins Tom Glavine as a future HOFer who lost the game eliminating their team from the postseason and completing an improbable fall. Because one week ago, I was talking about the Padres maybe passing the Diamondbacks and winning the division. I also referred to them as the NL's best team. I'm not sure I was wrong, but the tide turned quickly, and the Rockies zoomed into the postseason by going 14-1 in their last 15 games.
I should also note that the dramatic nature of this game may help clinch the MVP for Holliday. He doesn't deserve it, as his Coors-inflated numbers simply don't match up to the other top contenders. But this dramatic win, combined with a batting title and an RBI title, may help him get enough votes, especially if the writers are split between Chase Utley and Jimmy Rollins of the Phillies.

So now the postseason field is set, with the Rockies taking on the Phillies in the NLDS starting Wednesday. It's been a combined 26 years since those teams made the postseason, so here's to parity.

One or two other short notes:

• The calls for blood have already starting coming in in New York. I wouldn't be surprised if somebody got fired right after the Series (the MLB frowns on big announcements distracting from the postseason). The calls mainly come from the rabid New York sports media community, where patience, consideration, and level-headedness are in short supply. Buster Olney, one of the faces of the baseball media establishment, at least puts his neck out to say that the Mets failed as an organization, and it's shameful that the execs have let Willie Randolph twist in the wind these past few days. At Baseball Prospects, Gary Huckabay weighs in with a level-headed response to the idea of the Mets as failures; it's really just an accident of history that the Mets failed when they did. If they have that bad stretch in July but still finish one game short of the Phillies, no one goes as crazy as they are now. It's sad that we have to keep reminding people that "choking" isn't a sign of personal weakness, but there you go. Sports fans are vicious when it comes to taking out their anger on their erstwhile heroes, and while we all understand this, no one really takes it to heart and stops sending death threats. Good gravy.
• Shaun Assael, investigative reporter with ESPN the Magazine, says that according to a source, Met reliever Scott Schoeneweis received steroids in 2003 and 2004, while a member of the Chicago White Sox.
  To be honest, my first response is to wonder whether Assael should have come forward with this story at all. Assael is a great reporter, and he co-wrote a great book about wrestling, but I really think it's counter-productive to keep outing players as PED users. If it happened 3-4 years ago, is it really worth filing another story that's just going to flame the hypocritical "fight" against steroids and possibly ruin Scott Schoeneweis's career? I guess my attitude is changing, but really, what good does this knowledge do us?
  I really can't blame Assael. Like I said, he's a good reporter, and if it were my job, I probably would have filed the story too. And it's patently unfair of me to arbitrarily decide when we've broken the camel's back. But there are going to be a couple dozen more names coming out in the years to come, and by then we'll be talking about the events of 10 years ago. I know the journalism industry is more convinced about the information itself rather than asking why it should be published, but to put it in legal/moral terms, what is the probitive value of this knowledge? Schoeneweis probably broke the law, and I guess that's always news when it's a pro athlete. And if he has done so, then it's not unreasonable that his name come out.
  Maybe I'm just philosophising here, but adding another player to the list just keeps our focus on moralizing past behavior and brings scrutiny and disrepute beyond that warranted by the offense, especially when it's just a source claiming the crime took place at this point. I have faith in Assael's sources, but we should bear that in mind.
  This, too, will pass. And in ten years, surely the silly moral outrage over steroids will have died down. And it may be an unreasonable suggestion, but is it really worth the Scarlet "S"? After all we now know, is it still worth it.

Back tomorrow with playoff predictions and to celebrate my 2nd anniversary as a blogger. In lieu of flowers, please send cash.