MLB
  Scores
  Schedules
  Standings
  Statistics
  Transactions
  Injuries: AL | NL
  Players
  Weekly Lineup
  Message Board
  Minor Leagues
  MLB Stat Search

Clubhouses

Sport Sections
Monday, October 2
September Archives



FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 22
What's it like to spend 13 hours and 11 minutes watching baseball at Fenway Park over a two-day stretch? Well, let me tell you ...

It's tiring. As I remember my Wednesday and Thursday, I can't recall much that didn't happen at Fenway Park, even though I obviously spent the majority of my waking hours elsewhere. In those 13 hours and 11 minutes, I saw:

281 at-bats
42 runs
84 hits
5 home runs (yep, four games and only five home runs)
1,283 pitches

(OK, so I might have missed a few of those 1,283 pitches. But just a few.)

Oh, and I saw 28 pitchers. Twenty-eight different pitchers, including one -- ex-White Sox Jesus Pena -- who was apparently acquired especially for the occasion. September baseball can seem interminable, especially when both teams are playing for something more than pride. Take last night's game ... please. The Indians owned an 8-1 lead entering the bottom of the eighth. Dante Bichette led off with a home run. Manny Alexander singled, so Charlie Manuel summoned Steve Karsay from the bullpen to replace starter Chuck Finley.

Fine. But Karsay was just the first of three relievers in the inning, and none faced more than two hitters. And these are pretty good pitchers, too: Karsay, Ricardo Rincon, Paul Shuey, none of whom had pitched in the afternoon game.

If you'll indulge me for a moment, I'd like to rail, once again, about the silliness of the expanded rosters we see in September. They play for five months with 25-man rosters, and then in September, when the games mean more than ever, you change the nature of the sport?

Charlie Manuel and Jimy Williams both got ejected after arguing questionable calls, and when I saw the replays on TV, both of them had the truth on their side. Russell Branyan did not foul off that pitch, and Kenny Lofton did beat that throw to first base. Hey, nobody's perfect.

I saw Pedro Martinez lose yet another game in which he pitched brilliantly. In Pedro's six losses, he has a 2.44 ERA, which doesn't match the 1.59 in his victories, but would still lead the American League by a hefty margin. In Pedro's six losses, the Red Sox have scored the grand and magnificent total of seven runs.

I also saw why Omar Vizquel and Roberto Alomar have combined for 15 Gold Gloves (soon to be 17). As I'm sure I've written at least once, neither Vizquel nor Alomar typically have fielding numbers to match their reputations. But after watching them play five games apiece (four Wednesday and Thursday, plus the single game Tuesday), I can attest that nobody looks better than these guys.

When I keep score, I put an exclamation point after a fielder who makes a spectacular play. For example,

    4!3

means the second baseman made a great stop, then retired the batter with a throw to first base. (I also put a little arrow over the 4 to indicate in which direction he went before making the great stop, but that's probably more than you want to know.) Well, Alomar earned himself four exclamation points in the last four games, and I'm fairly certain that's a Rob Neyer record. One of those exclamation points led to a brilliant double play last night that (1) resulted in a healthy round of applause from the Fenway faithful and (2) showed up on SportsCenter, and deservedly so. Alomar also started a twin killing Wednesday night that didn't earn anyone an exclamation point, but did result in a note on my scorecard simply reading, "Pretty."

No exclamation points for Vizquel, but that's only because I felt that his two bare-handed plays could have been made with the help of his glove.

The point being, Vizquel and Alomar really are spectacular, whether you think they're spectacularly effective or not. And I'm a little jealous of the fans in Cleveland who get to watch them every day.

I also saw the Indians virtually destroy the Red Sox' postseason hopes, though one might argue that the Sox conspired in their own demise. As one fan was heard to remark, "Typical Red Sox. Keep it close. Tear your heart out. Stomp on it with a cleat."

And as another fan was heard to remark (actually, it was more of a bellow) to Roberto Alomar late in last night's crusher, "Roberto, if we don't make the playoffs, beat the Yankees! Just beat the Yankees. I hate the Yankees!"

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 21
Allan Wood forwarded me the following quote, from George Vecsey's story in the New York Times on Monday:

"I don't believe in pitch counts. We lost our counter, so I have no idea how long they worked. That pitcher [Japan's Daisuke Matsuzaka] was outstanding. I think that's the way it should be. I think a young pitcher has to strengthen his arm to get better. It's like a boxer. To strengthen your legs, you have to box."

Those words of wisdom were uttered by none other than Tommy Lasorda, the Sage of Pitching Longevity.

For the record, Fernando Valenzuela enjoyed his last great season when he was 24 years old. Also for the record, Ramon Martinez enjoyed his last great season when he was 22 years old. And one more time for the record, Ismael Valdes enjoyed his last good season when he was 23 years old.

So if you're the general manager of a major-league club, and you've sent one of your bright young pitching prospects Down Under, you'd better pray that he gets back Up Over without damage to his elbow or his shoulder.

(Of course, I'm exaggerating for effect. No matter what Lasorda might say about pitch counts, I suspect teams have been quite explicit with USA Baseball, that their pitchers are not to be extended past a certain point.)

  • Best silly stat of the week, courtesy of my buddy Mat Olkin over at Baseball Weekly ... Padres pitcher Adam Eaton has stolen two bases this season. All other pitchers in the major leagues have combined to steal one base. (Olkin's weekly "Mat at Bat" sidebar, by the way, is worth $1.25 all by itself. Or you can just read it at the bookstore in a minute.)

  • Speaking of Baseball Weekly, I found something interesting in Bob Nightengale's article about Barry Bonds and Jeff Kent. The two are not exactly pals, but that's not the interesting thing. No, what grabbed me was this: "Bonds will spend 30 minutes before games kibitzing with the opposing players at the batting cage. Kent refuses to even make eye contact with the opposition before games."

    Of course, Bonds' behavior is typical. Honestly, I didn't know there were still players like Kent who didn't engage in such friendly activities, and for all I know he might be the only one.

    There's a rule about this, you know. It's Rule 3.09, and it doesn't leave a lot to the imagination ...

    3.09 Players in uniform shall not address or mingle with spectators, nor sit in the stands before, during, or after a game. No manager, coach or player shall address any spectator before or during a game. Players of opposing teams shall not fraternize at any time while in uniform.

    Players of opposing teams shall not fraternize at any time while in uniform.

    This rule's been around for a long time, and it's been ignored for just as long. Presumably, it was originally written to discourage gambling, but it's been so uniformly ignored that one wonders why it's still in the book.

  • A couple of cool "firsts" yesterday ... After 12 years and 603 relief outings, Chuck McElroy finally started a game ... and he won, tossing five scoreless innings. That's the record for consecutive relief appearances to start a career before making a start.

    And last night, after nearly six seasons and 709 games, Michael Tucker made his first appearance at second base. This is interesting primarily because Tucker played the infield in college, and if he'd been able to play the infield as a professional, he'd be a wealthy man today. OK, so he's wealthy anyway, but if he could play second base he'd be a lot more wealthy. As it is, Tucker's a useful player if used in a limited role, but in 20 years you'll have forgotten that he existed unless he played for your favorite team.

    Anyway, it was just one inning, and Tucker didn't get a chance to field a ball. But that was enough to make me wonder what might have been.

  • Finally, I'd like to thank everyone for the HTML code, and more, regarding the Pythagorean method. I figured a few readers would be kind enough to send me some code ... but I should have known better. Scores of you responded, so many in fact that I simply can't thank you personally. I am grateful, though. And the formula can now be found below.

    PythagPct = Runs2 / (Runs2 + OppRuns2)

    WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 20
    As predicted, today's column brings another letter from the hinterlands ...

      Rob,

      You've stated in your column that the Blue Jays, though they were contending for a postseason spot, have actually been outscored this season. Well, they're only seven games over .500.

      What is more amazing is the fact that the Astros have outscored their opponents and are 16 games under .500. Their win total is about eight below their Pythagorean win total. The next closest teams are the Blue Jays and Braves who are both six games better then their runs scored and allowed would predict. The Mets are five games better then they should be, while the Pirates are five games worse. Just thought I would share this with you while my Astros finish up their disastrous season.

      Baldemar Mejia

    Thanks, Baldemar. I've been meaning to revisit the Pythagorean method before season's end, and I suppose this is as good a time as any.

    (By the way, the Pythagorean method simply "predicts" winning percentage based on runs scored and allowed. This predicted winning percentage is derived by squaring a team's runs scored, and dividing that by the sum of the team's runs scored squared and its runs allowed squared. And if anyone can supply the HTML code for that formula, I'll happily place it in the column.)

    You're right, the Astros are the anti-Pythagorean champs this year. That, along with its recent performance, suggests Houston is a prime candidate for a major improvement next season. Major enough to challenge the Cardinals for Central primacy? It's too early to say, but I certainly wouldn't be shocked to see the Astros in first place a year from now.

    After last night's 8-6 victory over the Cardinals, the 'Stros are 881 runs to the good, 873 runs to the bad. That record typically results in a .505 winning percentage, which would translate to a 76-75 record in 151 games. Houston has won only 68 games in real life, and that difference of eight games (actually, 8.2, but who's counting?) is indeed the largest in the majors this season.

    At the other end of the scale are your Atlanta Braves -- are they still "America's Team"? -- have won six games (actually, 5.6) more than we might expect, given their 750 runs scored and 666 allowed.

    Joining the Braves as big "overachievers" are the Orioles (+5.4), Blue Jays (+5.2), Mets (+5.0) and Marlins (+4.2). If you can find a common thread among those teams -- no, it's not a strong bullpen -- then I salute you.

    Joining the Astros as big "underachievers" are the Rockies (-5.1) and Pirates (-4.2). Of the 30 teams, 22 are within three games of their Pythagorean projections. Six clubs are within one game, with the Devil Rays being the most dead-on; Pythagoras projects a .40768 winning percentage for them, and their actual winning percentage is .40666.

    Some of you might be wondering what might be the point of all this, but I've written about the Pythagorean method so often that I won't bore you with its usefulness today. What I will tell you is that sometimes it's amazing what I learn simply by punching the runs scored and allowed by each team into a spreadsheet.

    Just as an example, without looking, I want you to tell me what's wrong with the Phillies this year ... you know what I thought? I thought the Phils had been killed by their pitching this year. Makes sense, right? They traded Schilling and Ashby, and how could a lineup containing Scott Rolen and Bob Abreu and Mike Lieberthal fail to score runs?

    Beats me, but they have. The Phillies have scored 657 runs, the fewest in the National League. And while their pitchers haven't been the best, they have posted a 4.70 ERA, which ranks 11th among the 16 NL teams.

    The problem is that after you get past Rolen and Abreu and Lieberthal, the Phillies have almost nothing. Check out the following four players:

                AB   OBP  Slug
    Relaford   253  .363  .328
    Glanville  592  .308  .373
    Morandini  302  .324  .315
    Jordan     304  .257  .316
    

    Toss in the (few) walks, and you're looking at approximately 1,500 plate appearances -- three lineup spots -- that have essentially been wasted. And these are just the prime offenders; lesser lights like Rob Ducey, Rico Brogna, Travis Lee, Kevin Sefcik and Alex Arias have been just as bad in their limited playing time.

    The Phillies almost have to improve next year, and improve substantially, because major league baseball players simply aren't this bad. Well, some of them are. But not this many on one team. So worry not, Philly phans. Second place may yet be in your future.

    TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19
    I've got a bunch of good mail that deserves space in this space, and so I'll probably spend much of the week doing that.

      Hey Rob,

      This is probably known to you, but I think that the possible scenario you described yesterday pales in comparison to what happened to the Red Sox in 1972.

      Later,
      Dave Kerr

    You're right, Dave. As bad as things might get this year, nothing can compare to 1972, when the Red Sox got jobbed like few teams have, before or since. Check this out:

              W-L    Pct   GB
    Detroit  86-70  .551   --
    Boston   85-70  .548  0.5
    

    Yes, those were the final standings. And this wasn't the Federal League in 1915 or something, it was the American League East in 1972.

    How did this happen? Well, the 1972 season included the first labor strike in professional sports (or at least the first that I know about). The season was supposed to begin on April 5, but a labor agreement was not reached until April 13, and the first games didn't take place until April 15. The owners decided that the lost games wouldn't be made up, which made a certain amount of sense giving the difficulties in rescheduling six or seven games for each club.

    However, the owners should have at least ensured that every club was scheduled for the same number of games, but this they did not do. No problem, really ... unless the difference in games decided a division title. And as you can see from the above standings, that's exactly what happened.

    Coincidentally, the Tigers and Red Sox were slated for a three-game series to close out the season. Entering that series, here were the standings:

              W-L    Pct   GB
    Boston   84-68  .548   --
    Detroit  84-69  .551  0.5
    

    Whichever team won the series would win the division, and the Tigers took the lead in the opener, beating the Red Sox 4-1 behind ace Mickey Lolich, who racked up 15 strikeouts. Tiger Stadium held 51,518 fans that evening, and you can bet nearly all of them remember it well.

    The second game matched Detroit's Woodie Fryman and Boston's Luis Tiant, two pitchers who performed brilliantly in the latter stages of the season. Fryman, purchased from Philadelphia in early August, wound up 10-3 with a 2.06 ERA for the Tigers (in 1973, Fryman fell to 6-13 with a 5.36 ERA). Tiant was just 4-4 entering August, but finished 15-6 with an AL-best 1.91 ERA.

    One of Tiant's six losses came in this game, though, as Fryman and reliever Chuck Seelbach combined to beat the Red Sox 3-1, with 37-year-old Al Kaline driving in the lead run in the bottom of the seventh.

    And that was the pennant. The Red Sox beat the Tigers on the season's final day, but that left them still a half-game off the pace, and their fans wondering what might have happened if the Red Sox had played just two more games: one to match Detroit, and then perhaps a one-game playoff against the Tigers to decide the division title.

    Postscript: In researching this column, I ran across a pair of, umm, interesting quotes in The Official Baseball Guide for 1973 ...

    "Ironically, this should bring the players and owners closer together. You don't have a good relationship when there is a superior and an inferior working under peaceful conditions. But if they are working as equals the relationship is better, even if it's stormy."
      -- Marvin Miller

    "I know we have reached the saturation point. If our payroll goes any higher, we just can't make it."
      -- Cubs general manager John Holland

    At that point, the Cubs had two players -- Ferguson Jenkins and Billy Williams -- who actually made more than $100,000. Apiece.

    Anyway, now perhaps you'll understand why, when I hear Bud Selig say that the player-owner relationship is better than ever, or when I hear anybody claim that baseball is on the brink of disaster, I usually roll my eyes and try to find a game to watch on TV.

    MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 18
    Weekending in Seattle, and spotted a pair of "state-of-the-game" articles in Sunday's Seattle Times that piqued my interest.

    The headline of one article read, "Standings closer than ever," and by at least one measure, it's true. As Murray Chass of The New York Times reports, this might be the first season in major league history in which no teams finish with a winning percentage lower than .400 or higher than .600.

    Indeed, after yesterday's games, the worst percentage in the majors is .403 (Cubs), and the best is .601 (Giants).

    And would this mean, historically?

    To his credit, Chass did conduct some research ...

    The major leagues came closest to the .400 to .600 range in 1958, when only the Washington Senators among the 16 teams finished out of that range. With a .396 percentage in the 154-game season, the Senators could have joined the other 15 teams if they had gained one additional victory, finishing with 62 instead of 61.

    Four other seasons ended with one team beyond the .400 to .600 range, the White Sox in 1959, the Detroit Tigers in '68 and '84, and the Oakland Athletics in '90.

    ... he just didn't take it the one extra and necessary step. If this season's parity is the result of some fundamental change in the game, then shouldn't we expect this parity to continue forward? Because if there's a fundamental change, the effects should show up in more than just one season.

           Year -1   Year 0   Year +1
    1958      4         1        1
    1959      1         1        5
    1968      3         1        5
    1984      3         1        2
    1990      3         1        2
    2000      6         1        ?
    

    The first column lists the number of teams that finished outside the .400 to .600 range in the season before. The second column lists the number of teams that finished outside those ranges in the season in question (with the 2000 number based on a projection of today's standings), and the third column lists the number of teams that finished outside those ranges the year after the season in question.

    Except for that two-year run of apparent parity in 1958 and '59, I don't see any pattern at all. What I think is that this season is simply a statistical anomaly. As was 1999.

    Unfortunately, Chass looked at the 2000 standings, conducted his research, and then went around asking general managers if there's anything different this season. And that's the crux of the problem, this compulsion felt by sportswriters -- and for that matter, us regular people, too -- a compulsion to explain that which need not be explained.

    Allard Baird came up with a wacky theory (not enough pitching), Doug Melvin came up with a slightly less wacky theory (teams with big payrolls devoting high percentages of their money to a small percentage of their rosters), and Ron Schueler thinks it's just a bunch of injuries suffered by the best teams (the Yankees and the Indians).

    But believe it or not, Bud Selig seems to have the most realistic view of the situation. As Commissioner Bud said -- and this might be the first time I've ever quoted Selig with approval -- "There may be an aberration from time to time."

    Hey, there's nothing wrong with aberrations, as they make life infinitely more interesting than it would otherwise be. But that's about all aberrations can teach us, that life is interesting.

    The other article was simply credited to "Seattle Times News Services," which could mean just about anything, but the piece certainly should have been bylined because it certainly contains an editorial bent.

    As you might know, the team with the best record in each league will enjoy home-field advantage throughout the Division Series and Championship Series. Ah, but what happens if, say, the White Sox and Yankees tie for the best record in the American League?

    The White Sox get home field, because they beat the Yankees in their season series, 8 games to 4. Here's where it gets tricky, though ... the Yankees and Marlins were rained out of a game earlier in the season, and no make-up has been scheduled. The Yankees are already playing on every day between now and the end of the season, so the postponed game will not be made up at all.

    But what if the Yankees finish a half-game ahead of the White Sox for the best record in the American League? Obviously, the White Sox would want the Yankees to play that game against the Marlins, because if the Yankees lost, then the White Sox would get the home field.

    According to the Seattle Times News Service, though, there is no contingency plan for this eventuality.

    It's a tough situation, it really is. Forcing the Yankees to play Florida the day after the last day of the season would obviously hurt New York's postseason chances. But giving the Yankees the home field because they were "lucky" enough to have a game rained out against a National League opponent would hurt Chicago's postseason chances, too.

    I suppose I would make the Yankees play that game, because the integrity of the 162-game season, bastardized though it's been by interleague play and various other silly scheduling, should be maintained to the extent that it's still possible

    But whatever I think should happen, the real problem is that the decision apparently hasn't been made yet. Due to the convoluted postseason format and the aforementioned silly scheduling, there are all sorts of strange possibilities, and, unfortunately, Commissioner Bud and his Band of Merry Men didn't bother to think through everything first.

    But by God, they sure did a wonderful job with the Hank Aaron Award.

    FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 15
    A few notes while wondering why the Royals have topped the Athletics in home attendance this season, and why the Expos are still in Montreal ...

  • Anybody else think that Greg Maddux has muscled his way into the Cy Young sweepstakes?

    With his second straight shutout Wednesday night, Maddux upped his record to 17-5, and lowered his ERA to 3.05. Not long ago in this space, I argued for Randy Johnson over Tom Glavine, that argument resulting in a heated exchange over on the Rob Neyer's Adventures with OPS message board. Well, a pair of shutouts can change these situations in a hurry, and here are the latest stats for the Brave aces:

             Innings  W-L   ERA   ERA Rank
    Maddux     230   17-8  3.09       4
    Glavine    214   19-7  3.62       7
    

    Everybody was in a tizzy over Glavine's second-half stats. Well, he's 10-2 with a 3.62 ERA since the All-Star break. Over that same span, Maddux is 7-5 with a 2.76 ERA. You take the guy with the gaudy record, I'll take the guy with the ERA nearly a run lower, and I'll beat you the great majority of the time.

    And of course, I'd still take Randy Johnson over either of them. Johnson and Glavine face off tonight, again, in a game that might play a big part in making up Cy Young voters' minds. They just shouldn't forget Glavine's more accomplished teammate.

  • Everybody's been talking about Carlos Delgado's shot for the Triple Crown (not gonna happen), but Padres right-hander Matt Clement has a chance for a sort of Triple Crown of his own. The below is lifted from MLB's official statistics handout, distributed in the press box before each major league game:

    WILD PITCHES        HIT BATSMEN      WALKS
    22 Clement, M       17 Wright, J     115 Clement, M
    21 Williamson, S    15 Clement, M    115 Park, C
    

    What's impressive here is Clement's across-the-board excellence in these three categories. Cincinnati's Scott Williamson ranks No. 2 in wild pitches, but not among the top 10 in Hit Batsmen or Walks (yes, I know that he's pitched relatively few innings). Milwaukee's Jamey Wright ranks No. 1 in Hit Batsmen, but not among the top 10 in Wild Pitches, and just No. 10 in Walks. Los Angeles' Chan Ho Park ranks co-No. 1 in Walks, but fourth in Wild Pitches and sixth in Hit Batsmen.

    So Park is having some control problems, too. The difference is that he's 15-10 with a 3.67 ERA, and Clement is 12-15 with a 5.06 ERA. I still think Clement could be a pretty decent pitcher, but he's 26 now and owns a 4.77 career ERA. Clement was supposed to be a star, and time's running out for that plan.

  • This is sort of a Remedial Baseball Statistics lesson, but the Club Fielding table (in those MLB stats) points up, yet again, just how meaningless fielding percentage usually is. You know how you'll hear a broadcaster say, glowing admiration pouring forth, that a team leads the league in fielding.

    But what does that mean? Through Tuesday night's games, the Colorado Rockies led the National League with a .985 fielding percentage. The Milwaukee Brewers ranked ninth in the National League with a .980 fielding percentage. The Rockies had committed 83 errors, the Brewers 111.

    Twenty-eight errors separate the No. 1 and No. 9 teams, which should tell you nearly all you need to know. By contrast, 92 hits separate the No. 2 and No. 9 teams in batting average, and 71 hits separate the No. 2 and No. 9 teams in batting average allowed. (The No. 1 team in both categories is Colorado, with numbers so extreme as to make my point more forcefully than it deserves.)

    If there's one thing analysts should mention less often, it's batting average. No. 2 is "chemistry," and No. 3 just might be fielding percentage.

    THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 14
    Best thing in September? A hard-fought baseball game involving two pennant contenders. Second-best thing in September? A hard-fought baseball game involving one pennant contender, and that's just what I witnessed Wednesday night at Safeco Field. It was one of those games where -- many times -- an inch or two might well have made the difference between winning and losing.

    The Mariners already knew the Athletics had lost, so if Seattle could beat Kansas City, they'd stretch their lead in the West to two games. And you got the feeling that with every play, the Mariners were thinking about that lead in the West.

    There were, by my count, four spectacular defensive plays (Joe Randa and Luis Ordaz for the Royals, Al Martin and Carlos Guillen for the M's) and eight line drives turned into outs. As much as a pitcher's duel -- it was scoreless through six innings, and 1-1 after 10 -- this one turned into a fielder's duel.

    Johnny Damon, who's been unbelievable since the All-Star break, lined out in his first two at-bats, grounded out to shortstop in his third, and reached base on a one-out walk in the seventh. He advanced to second on a wild pitch, and moved to third on Rey Sanchez's liner to center (yes, another line-out). That brought up Mike Sweeney. With Jermaine Dye up next, Lou Piniella ordered an intentional walk for Sweeney.

    Of course, it's fairly uncommon to walk one right-handed batter with 100-plus RBI to face another right-handed batter with 100-plus RBI, unless you're trying to set up a double play or something. Here are Sweeney's and Dye's numbers this season:

              Games   RBI   OBP  Slug   OPS
    Sweeney    143    133  .408  .535   943
    Dye        141    111  .383  .567   950
    

    Aside from the RBI, Dye's been just as good a hitter as Sweeney, so how does one justify the addition of a baserunner in a tie game? Now, it's possible that Lou Piniella knows something about this situation that we don't know. Perhaps, considering Jose Paniagua's pitch repertoire, Sweeney was particularly likely to hit the ball hard. Or Dye was particularly unlikely to hit the ball hard. Or both.

    Perhaps. But I suspect that Piniella's decision was based on something less significant; namely, the two games that preceded this one, two games in which Sweeney went 5-for-8 with three home runs, and Dye went 1-for-9.

    I turned to Mike Curto, a friend of mine who broadcasts the Tacoma Rainiers games with great skill, and asked, "You walk Sweeney to get to Dye?"

    "Sweeney's been killing the ball," Mike replied.

    Do hot streaks exist? Of course they do. The question is, does having been hot make a batter more likely to hit safely in his next at-bat? Mike says yes, I say no. Mike will see roughly 160 baseball games in person this year, so he's got the weight of experience behind him. I will see roughly 110 games in person this year, plus I've got the weight of science behind me. But we've all trod this ground before, recently enough that I'll wait a while before doing so again.

    This particularly frustrated me because, with those 133 RBI, Sweeney is currently tied for the Royals team record. One more and he passes Hal McRae (who set the record in 1982, when it seemed like he doubled to the gap every time there were runners on base), and I really wanted to see that happen in person.

    Anyway, Dye followed the intentional walk with a line drive into center field. Damon scored easily, and the Royals had a 1-0 lead.

    Al Martin, a huge disappointment since he arrived in Seattle, led off the bottom of the seventh with a grounder to first base. That brought up Jay Buhner, and Mike said, "Buhner hits a home run here."

    A bold prediction, but Buhner is, very quietly, enjoying a fine season. He's played irregularly, but he's been excellent when he's played, posting a .377 OBP and a .551 slugging percentage. His 928 OPS ranks third among the Mariners, behind only Alex Rodriguez and Edgar Martinez, and well ahead of John Olerud, who's No. 4.

    Buhner walloped Blake Stein's fourth pitch over the center-field fence for a game-tying home run, and chalk one up for Mike Curto's powers of prognostication. (Did Mike know that Buhner had already hit two home runs in his career against Stein, in only six at-bats? Nah, I think he just got lucky.)

    The Royals very nearly went ahead in the top of the ninth. With Kazuhiro Sasaki on the mound, Kansas City had runners on first and third with two outs (thanks to Guillen's error). Todd Dunwoody's been terrible this season -- yes, he's terrible every season -- but he ripped Sasaki's first pitch down the first-base line. But like most of the other line drives on this night, it was caught, this time by a lunging Olerud. And so they played on.

    I was shocked -- shocked!-- when Kazuhiro Sasaki came out to pitch the 10th inning. Prior to last night, Sasaki had pitched in 57 games, and in only one of those 57 games had he recorded more than three outs. But I have to give Piniella a little credit, both for using Sasaki in a tie game, and for using Sasaki in a new way. The Mariners are in a pennant race, and sometimes you have to play it differently in September than you did in April. Sasaki retired the Royals in order.

    The bottom of the 10th and the top of the 11th were relatively uneventful, with both clubs getting a runner on base but failing to advance him past second.

    Ricky Botallico came in to pitch the bottom of the 11th, which had to put the fear of God into the few hundred Royals fans still awake (by then, it was nearly one in the morning back in the Central Time Zone). Miracle of miracles, Botallico struck out Rodriguez, but then he walked Martinez. Charles Gipson, very fast but not an accomplished basestealer, pinch ran for Martinez with Mike Cameron due next.

    With the count 1-and-2 to Martin, Botallico threw a pitch high and outside. It wasn't a pitch-out but served just as well, and Gipson was out trying to steal by a mile. But Cameron walked, too, bringing up Buhner, who had already homered, but missed a hanging curve in the bottom of the ninth, popping to center field with runners on second and third and one out.

    This time, he didn't miss, lining Botallico's third pitch -- an oh-two pitch! -- into the left-field corner. The ball died when it hit the wall, so Dunwoody had to chase it down while Cameron was tearing around the bases. Dunwoody threw a strike to cutoff man Rey Sanchez, who turned and fired plateward.

    From my perspective, a few rows behind the dugout on the third-base side, it looked like the runner beat the throw. But given the vehemence with which Zaun and Botallico argued the call with plate umpire Marvin Hudson, I had my doubts, and what I didn't know was that Zaun did a great job blocking Cameron from the plate.

    Listening to the radio after the game, I heard Mariners broadcaster Dave Niehaus describe the play at the plate as "very, very close." Niehaus must have seen the replay, though, and he must have known that the Mariners caught a break. I've seen the replay on SportsCenter three times, and there's absolutely no doubt that Hudson blew the call. Though I'm a Royals fan, I simply can't generate much outrage, because the Royals simply didn't execute. Sanchez's throw home was high; two feet lower, and there's no way Hudson misses the call. And then there's Botallico (fondly called Ricky Blow-tallico by his fans back in Kansas City). He faced four batters, and gave up two walks and a laser beam. So as bad as Marvin Hudson might have done his job in the bottom of the 11th, Botallico might have been worse.

    And if the Mariners wind up winning the West, this is one of the games they'll never forget.

    A note on the fans: I've got season tickets at Safeco Field, so it gives me no joy to report that the crowd there is about as exciting as a dead fish. Yes, I've been spoiled by Fenway, but if this is baseball in the 21st century, I might want to remain in the 20th.

    As exciting as last night's game was, the fans made noise only on those occasions when the video board told them to. I know I've said this before, but I'll say it again: if you've not been to Fenway Park, you need to get there before it's gone, so you'll at least have the memory of what a baseball game is supposed to feel like. Because in the great majority of the new mallparks, it just ain't the same.

    Programming Note: Tonight at 7 p.m. Central Time, ESPN.com contributor Eddie Epstein will be signing copies of "Baseball Dynasties" at the Barnes & Noble in Plano, Texas (corner of Park and Preston). Be there if you can.

    WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 13
    One benefit of traveling -- and I've been on the road far too often this summer -- is that you get to read lots of different newspapers. And yeah, you can read just about any newspaper via the Internet, but it's just not the same. Anyway, yesterday I had to change planes in San Francisco, and picked up a copy of the Examiner at the airport. And within its pages there were a couple of cool notes about the Friday-through-Monday series between the Athletics and the Devil Rays.

    One, Oakland starters, threw 35 of 36 possible innings. That included complete games by Gil Heredia (4-0 loss), Tim Hudson (10-0 win) and Barry Zito (11-0 win), and an eight-inning effort by Kevin Appier (5-1 win), bouncing back from one of the worst starts of his career last week.

    The Examiner's Brian Murphy (who also writes about the NFL for ESPN.com) described Monday night's victory as "another perfunctory spanking of the cardboard cutouts who pass as Tampa Bay Devil Rays," and that leads to the other fact I ran across ... the Devil Rays did not draw a single walk in the entire series.

    A surprise? Well, the Devil Rays do rank eighth in the American League in walks. But that ranking is misleading; with 500, they're only eight walks ahead of No. 12 Detroit, but 99 walks behind No. 3 Cleveland. And they're only 50 walks ahead of No. 14 Kansas City, but 180 walks behind No. 1 Seattle.

    So no, Tampa Bay is not a walkin' ball club. Still, zero in four games is something else, and you have to wonder if, at this late stage of the season, they're not just going up there and taking their hacks.

    And this leads to something else that's been bugging me, the idea that non-contending teams are "loose" in September, and thus more "dangerous" than they might otherwise be. Last Saturday night, I was watching a game on TV -- can't remember the teams, as by this point in the season, anything that happened four days ago is mostly a blur -- and broadcaster Ken Brett kept going on and on about this, how those crummy teams are the ones you have to watch out for.

    Really? If you've got a choice between playing the Red Sox or the Devil Rays right now, who would you choose? I suppose I shouldn't say this until I actually study the issue, but I'll bet my Hoyt Wilhelm rookie card that crummy teams tend to play crummy in September, just as they did in April and June and August. And all this stuff about being loose and dangerous is just filler, one of those silly things that broadcasters say when they can't think of anything intelligent.

    Speaking of studying issues, every day I read that the White Sox and Athletics will be at a disadvantage in the postseason, because their pitching rotations are anchored by young starters. But is this true? Are the Indians better off with Chuck Finley and Dave Burba than the A's are with Tim Hudson and Barry Zito?

    It would be a simple, but time-consuming study (at least if you did it with nothing more than a baseball encyclopedia and an Excel file): find matched sets of pitchers, with similar ERAs in the regular season but significantly different levels of major-league experience, and see how each group fared in the postseason. If there's sufficient interest in this issue, I'll see if I can employ a small percentage of ESPN's vast research resources to the chore. (On a similar note, check out Chris Kahrl's article on rookie pitchers in the postseason, which points out that rookie starters have gone 28-10 with a 3.77 ERA in 59 playoff games since 1977.)

    Now, a few notes on this thing we call "baseball":

  • Presumably, you heard that Dave Hansen set the single-season, pinch-hit record for home runs last night, smiting his seventh against the Diamondbacks. But did you know that Hansen's got "only" 13 pinch-hits all season, which means that more than half of them have been home runs? And did you know that, overall, he's compiled a 907 OPS in roughly 270 plate appearances over the last two seasons? That's good.

  • I have, in the last two weeks, read that (1) Kazuhiro Sasaki is the leading candidate for American League Rookie of the Year honors, (2) Mark Quinn is the leading candidate for American League Rookie of the Year honors, and (3) Terrence Long is the leading candidate for American League Rookie of the Year honors. Now, the (mostly) men who write these things talk to each other constantly, so I'm wondering why they can't get their story straight. I actually think Quinn is the odds-on favorite, but that might be wishful thinking. I am fairly sure, though, that the voting will be extremely close, and it might just go to whichever of the three plays the best over the next couple of weeks.

  • On a personal note, I'm thrilled to see that Rusty Meacham is back in the major leagues. A rookie in 1992, Meacham pitched wonderfully in middle relief for Kansas City, posting a 2.74 ERA and a 10-4 record, and permitting only 109 baserunners in 102 innings. Plus, he was fun to watch, all elbows and knees and feet, with the strange habit of playing catch with himself on the mound.

    Unfortunately, those 102 innings may have taken their toll. From 1993 through 1996, Meacham managed only 173 innings, and they were mostly ineffective innings. The last we saw of him was 42 frames for the Mariners in '96.

    But now, after posting a 2.20 ERA in 57 innings for Triple-A New Orleans, he's back with the Astros, and has tossed a pair of scoreless innings. I just hope he's back next season, because most of us won't get a chance to see Meacham pitch this year, as Houston doesn't play on national TV again.

    TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 12
    Let's dip into the ol' mailbag once again ...

      Hey Rob, did you see the latest from Mr. La Russa? Monday in Pittsburgh, he had McGwire in the starting lineup, batting second and listed at 2B. When the Cards took the field in the bottom of the first, McGwire was replaced at second base by Placido Palanco. The move "worked" in that Big Mac hit a two-run homer in the top of the first to give the Cards an early lead, but is the top of the first inning really the best use of McGwire's one AB per game?

      Later,
      Mike Miller

    Mark McGwire, major league second baseman.

    Yeah, it's weird.

    As I've argued many times, La Russa does a lot of stuff that makes sense only in the weird fifth dimension of baseball strategy that occupies a fair amount of his mind. But you know, this one makes sense to me, too, a lot more sense than batting the pitcher eighth or wasting many hundreds of at-bats on Craig Paquette and Shawon Dunston.

    What's the goal? The goal is to get McGwire as many at-bats against live pitching as possible, the better to prepare him for October action. But he can't play the field, so the only way to guarantee him at least one at-bat per game is to put him in one of the top three slots in the order, when the Cards are on the road.

    Some have argued that McGwire should instead be reserved for pinch-hitting duties, but the problem there is that you might not need a pinch-hitter, or at least not a pinch-hitter who's swinging for the fences. And anyway, the Cardinals don't really have a pressing need for more victories, given their insurmountable lead in the National League Central.

    So yeah, it's weird, but it does make sense. And La Russa's one of the few managers who would even think of doing it.

    You know, there's some historical precedent for this move, involving another gimpy, slugging first baseman.

    On July 13, 1934, in Detroit, Yankees first baseman Lou Gehrig led off the second inning with a single. As related by Ray Robinson in "Quiet Hero: Lou Gehrig in His Time," Gehrig "suddenly stumbled halfway to the bag. Only with great effort was Lou able to reach first base. When he arrived there he couldn't straighten up." Gehrig remained in the game to run the bases, but retired from the contest after one Tiger had been retired in the bottom of the second.

    Gehrig was already baseball's "Iron Man," having set the consecutive-games record nearly 11 months earlier, and the streak had become an ongoing story.

    When Gehrig woke up the next morning, he was drenched in sweat, and he didn't feel any better after arriving at the ballpark. Reluctantly, Gehrig told Yankees manager Joe McCarthy, "I don't think I can go nine today. But I'd like to keep the streak alive, Joe, because I'm sure I can play tomorrow. Would you do me a favor? Let me lead off. I'll take my first bat, then I'll get out for the day."

    And that's exactly what happened. Just as McGwire was listed at second base and batted second, Gehrig was listed at shortstop and led off. (By the way, though Gehrig never actually took the field defensively as a shortstop, according to the record books he did play one game at the position. And McGwire will always show up with one game at second base.)

    Too stiff to really swing the bat, Gehrig nevertheless blooped a single to right field, and promptly headed for the bench. The streak lived on. (And in a postscript, Gehrig took his normal place in the lineup the next afternoon, and banged out four hits in four at-bats, including three doubles.)

    Say what you want about Tony La Russa, but you gotta give him this ... he keeps things interesting.

    MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 11
  • The most ridiculous thing I read last week: "Dante Bichette finally is the right-handed power bat general manager Dan Duquette has been seeking."

    If Bichette really is what Dan Duquette has been seeking, then Duquette's been even dumber this season than everybody thought. I mean, I could understand if, in late August he said to his staff, "Gee, staff, I spent the last couple of months trying to get us a good player, but I failed. And since our manager won't put Izzy Alcantara in the lineup, I've gone ahead and picked up Dante Bichette, who's not any good but is better than what we've got."

    But a power bat? In 501 at-bats this season, Dante Bichette has hit a grand and stupendous total of 18 home runs; 94 players have hit more, including Rich Aurilia, Mike Bordick and Mike Lowell. His .469 slugging percentage ranks 84th in the major leagues. And for a pair of super-special bonuses, folks, he's a lousy defensive outfielder and is scheduled to make $6.5 million next season.
  • The second-most ridiculous thing I read last week: "Who would have thought it would be Frank Thomas gunning for an MVP award? He'll probably win unless Carlos Delgado can lead Toronto into the playoffs via a Triple Crown or something."

    I'll give the author of the above sentences the benefit of the doubt, and assume that he was simply predicting the outcome of the MVP balloting rather than arguing for such a thing. Because I think it's nearly impossible to construct a rational argument for Thomas over Delgado. Here are their key stats entering play this week:

             Games  Runs  RBI   OBP  Slug   OPS
    Thomas    141    107  134  .443  .651  1094
    Delgado   143    108  129  .479  .694  1173  
    

    Thomas is enjoying a wonderful season, right in line with some of his best. Delgado is arguably posting some of the best numbers of the last half-century. No, he can't match Thomas in the RBI column, but that's largely because the Blue Jays aren't adept at getting on base. Let him bat cleanup for the Athletics or Mariners, and he'd be leading the world in RBI.

    As for making the playoffs having any bearing on things, I've written this a thousand times but it bears repeating ... It's asinine to vote for Player A over Player B simply because Player A's team is blessed with a better pitching staff. Throw in the facts that (1) Delgado plays first base, while Thomas mostly DHs; and (2) Delgado is regarded by those close to his team as a consummate leader, and I really don't understand how anyone could vote for Thomas over Delgado.

    Does that mean Delgado's the MVP? Nope. Look at home/road splits for these two and for Alex Rodriguez, and you might well decide that Rodriguez is the guy. At some point down the line, we'll work through all of the candidates. But I just don't understand the argument for Thomas.

  • A pair of notes on old columns that concerned old players ...

    Tonight, ESPN Classic presents "a special This Day in History on Pete Rose," who collected his 4,192nd hit exactly 15 years ago, thus breaking Ty Cobb's 57-year-old record ... or so we thought. As I mentioned last week (in passing), the most recent research holds that Cobb finished his career with 4,189 hits rather than 4,191. If that's true -- and every encyclopedia now agrees on the lower number -- then Rose actually broke Cobb's record on September 8, 1985, with a single off Cubs right-hander Reggie Patterson.

    I'll be at Yankee Stadium tonight so I'll miss the program, but I'd be obliged if someone out there could watch the special, and let me know if there's any mention of the actual record-breaking hit.

    Oh, and I've got some good news. You might remember that a couple of weeks ago, I visited the Negro Leagues Baseball Museum, and repeated in this space a quote exhibited there. That quote, attributed to columnist Jimmy Powers, suggested that Powers was, at best, an enemy of the integration of Major League Baseball.

    But after conducting a bit of superficial research, I came to believe that the quote attributed to Powers was bogus. I wrote about it here, and I also contacted the Negro Leagues Baseball Museum. Well, this weekend I received an e-mail message from Raymond Doswell, the museum's curator. His message read, in part, "Upon further review, it appears that the placard on Jimmy Powers in the museum exhibit is grossly mis-labeled. We will correct this right away. I believe our exhibit designers may have mixed up some quotes and sources when producing this label. It is an unfortunate mistake on our part."

    My compliments to the Negro Leagues Baseball Museum for their willingness to address this situation quickly and even-handedly. I know it might not seem like a big thing, but a man's good name was at stake.

    FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 8
    Seems like forever since Gary Sheffield hit a home run, and it seems like forever since I posted reader mail. Only Sheffield can do anything about the former, but I've had plenty of practice with the latter. So ...

      Rob,

      Just wanted to remind you of something you predicted a while back and were right on with. A few weeks ago, Andy Ashby threw a shutout against the Mets, but in doing so he threw 136 pitches. At that point, he was 2-0 with Atlanta. Well, after that taxing performance you said to watch out for him in his next few starts ... Well, in seven starts since then, he's 1-5 with a 6.44 ERA. Further proof that even veteran pitches can suffer severely from high pitch counts.

      Brian P. Noonan

    Thanks for the note, Brian. I do appreciate the rare occasions on which someone reminds me of a successful prediction rather than a failed one. Now, what about Ashby?

    Well, it's interesting. You look at his game log, and it seems the Braves have been very careful with Ashby since that 136-pitch outing on July 23. Five days later, he allowed just four hits and a walk in five innings ... but was pulled after throwing 73 pitches. In each of his next four starts -- none of them impressive, it should be said -- Ashby was yanked before reaching 100 pitches. And then on August 29, Ashby allowed six hits and a walk in six innings ... but was pulled after 88 pitches. It's almost as if, after that 136-pitch game, Bobby Cox and Leo Mazzone poked each other in the eyes and exclaimed, "We're the Braves! Why the hell did we just let one of our guys throw 136 pitches?"

    Unfortunately, whatever they're doing now isn't working. Last Sunday against the Astros, Ashby lasted just 3 2/3 innings, his shortest outing of the season. Right now, Ashby is the weak link in the rotation, and it's quite likely that the Braves would be better off with Bruce Chen. How much better? Since joining the Phillies rotation, Chen has posted a 3.38 ERA in 10 starts, and he'd make a great fourth starter for a contending ballclub.

    OK, ready for the interesting part of this column?

    None of the above means anything. Or rather, it might mean something and it might not. As I've mentioned more than once, I don't really know that 136 pitches is too many. I mean, there's presumably an upper limit, and it's possible 136 might be over that limit, at least for Ashby. But it's also possible, quite possible, that Ashby's slide since that high-pitch outing is mere coincidence, or perhaps it's the fates conspiring to make me look smart and Bobby Cox stupid.

    Yes, I think Ashby should have been removed from that game against the Mets before throwing nearly that many pitches, and I think his victory over those Mets, as crucial as it might have seemed at the time, certainly wasn't worth the risk of future ineffectiveness.

    Then again, I also thought that Livan Hernandez and Russ Ortiz would both suffer from the heavy workloads they endured in 1999 and early this season. Instead, they've combined for 15 wins and a 2.61 ERA since the All-Star break. If you want to know how the Giants have, in the last eight weeks, established themselves as perhaps baseball's best team, look no further than these two young pitchers ... two young pitchers who seemed like big injury risks to this observer.

    And frankly, I'm still not convinced that everything is copacetic with Hernandez and Ortiz. Maybe I shouldn't admit this, but I'll still be surprised if they're both pitching well five or six years from now. That's not Dusty Baker's problem, though, is it? His problem is winning a World Series this year, and at this point he's made a real good start toward solving that problem.

    THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 7
    First thing today, I want you to look at two two pitchers' statistics from 1999:

                GS  Innings  Hits   BB   K    W-L   ERA
    Pitcher A   34    239     206  101  177  22-4  2.90 
    Pitcher B   35    272     207   70  364  17-9  2.48
    

    Need a hint? Probably not, but I'll tell you that Pitcher B is a full foot taller than Pitcher A ... Got it now? Right, you've been treated to none other than Mike Hampton and Randy Johnson, just one year ago!

    Now, there were some who argued for Hampton as the National League's Cy Young winner, based on his five-victory advantage. But cooler heads prevailed -- somewhat surprising, given the spotty voting record of the Baseball Writers Association of America -- and Johnson topped the balloting, drawing 20 first-place votes to Hampton's 11 (one guy voted for Kevin Millwood).

    In fairness to those who did vote for Hampton, there wasn't a great difference between their ERAs, and Bank One Ballpark and the Astrodome were both good pitcher's parks a year ago.

    Anyway, I didn't gather you all here just to rehash a year-old debate. No, the point is that Johnson did win, and rather handily.

    OK, new pair of pitchers, this time from the current National League campaign:

                GS  Innings  Hits   BB   K    W-L   ERA
    Pitcher A   30    207     191   59  130  19-6  3.61 
    Pitcher B   29    217     167   63  299  17-6  2.45
    

    Assuming that these two are battling for this year's Cy Young honors, it doesn't look like much of a battle to me. Again, Pitcher B is Randy Johnson, and his numbers are almost identical to last year's, except that he's almost certainly going to win more games. And there's no way that Pitcher A -- Tom Glavine, like Hampton a finesse left-hander who will never be mistaken for a Big Unit -- will approach Hampton's 1999 ERA or winning percentage.

    Yet after Atlanta's victory Tuesday night, a story in USA Today read, "Glavine mastered Arizona in the duel of left-handers twice decorated with the Cy Young Award and is on top in the competition for the award this year."

    Let me ask you, how can Randy Johnson win the Cy Young in 1999, but lose it in 2000?

    Wait, I know what Rod Beaton would say!

    Johnson is just 3-4 since the All-Star break, while Glavine is 10-1.

    But has Glavine really pitched much better than Johnson?

              GS  Innings  Hits   BB   K    W-L    ERA
    Glavine   11    75      75    14   35  10-1   3.60
    Johnson   11    72      70    27  101   3-4   3.75
    

    Yeah, Glavine's pitched a bit better in the heat of the pennant race ... but better enough to outweigh the vast difference between their season-long performances? Gosh, I sure don't think so.

    The National League Cy Young isn't as cut-and-dried as in the American League. But if the season ended tomorrow, it would be a crying shame, if anyone other than Randy Johnson won the award.

    Tom Glavine's a great pitcher, perhaps a future Hall of Famer. But unless he and Johnson travel vastly divergent paths over the next three weeks, Glavine's no Cy Young in 2000.

    TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 5
    Many wondrous things happened over the weekend, so I hope you'll indulge an old man as he rambles through a variety of topics ...

  • I've been quite restrained lately, haven't mentioned Steve Sparks once. But I can restrain myself no longer. Sparks, currently the only knuckleballer in a major-league rotation, posted a 1.69 ERA in August, best in the American League. And Friday night, he won his sixth straight start with seven-plus quality innings.

    The Tigers have been one of baseball's best stories this summer, and Sparks deserves more credit than he's received.

  • I hope you saw that crazy triple play in Cleveland Friday night. If not, you should check out the game recap. Anyway, John Shulock really blew it. He simply didn't realize that shortstop Melvin Mora was camped under the ball in short left field, and thus he didn't call the Infield Fly Rule. Mora might not be the most sure-handed fellow in the American League, but he might be one of the smartest.

    As Mora said after the game, "I heard nothing from nobody. I expected to hear the call. There was no chance for the runner from first to go to second or the runner at second to go to third."

    By the way, there seemed to be some confusion in the coverage of this play. While it's true that a fielder is not permitted to intentionally drop the ball, he is permitted to let the ball hit the ground, untouched. And that's exactly what Mora did.

  • I'm not going to devote a column to this, because I've already written plenty about the Red Sox this season. But if you'll indulge me for a moment ... What can Dan Duquette possibly be thinking about? He trades for Rolando Arrojo ... and as something of a throw-in, assumes Mike Lansing's $6.25 million salary for 2001. He trades for Dante Bichette ... and assumes Bichette's $6.5 million salary for 2001. These are mediocre players, and the Sox are stuck with them. Oh, and they're also stuck with the 2001 salaries, in the same range, that'll be paid to Jose Offerman and John Valentin.

    If anything happens to Pedro Martinez, the 2001 Boston Red Sox will remind us of the 1999 Baltimore Orioles. And that might happen even if Pedro wins his third straight Cy Young.

  • As many of you remember, my pick for National League Central champs -- and, for that matter, the National League's World Series entry -- was the Houston Astros. Now, if you'd known before the season that Moises Alou would make a spectacular comeback from his knee injury, Richard Hidalgo would hit close to 40 home runs, Jeff Bagwell would be leading the league in runs and Scott Elarton would be 15-5 in early September, wouldn't you have given the Astros a good chance at postseason success?

    Yes, that's a fool's game, the crutch of a baseball writer who's stuck for an original idea. But my point is that some things, some big things, have gone right for the Astros this year. More big things have gone wrong, of course, which is why the Astros currently sport the second-worst record in the majors. And a "little thing" has gone horribly wrong, too: Houston's just 11-27 in one-run games. Give them a bit of luck, and the Astros are at least respectable. I'm not saying they'll contend next year, but I'll be shocked if they finish anywhere near last place again.

  • A friend wishes to point out that the 2000 Anaheim Angels have a chance to become just the second team in major-league history with five 100-RBI men in the lineup. The first was the 1936 Yankees, with Lou Gehrig (152), Joe DiMaggio (125), Tony Lazzeri (109), Bill Dickey and George Selkirk (107 for both).

    Through Monday's game, the Angels feature Mo Vaughn (106), Garret Anderson (96), Darin Erstad and Troy Glaus (both with 90) and Tim Salmon (86). Vaughn's already there, of course, and the other four should all make it, too.

  • After watching the Giants beat the Phillies on ESPN, and then engaging in a bit of simplistic analysis, I'm fairly convinced that the Giants are (1) the best team in the National League, and (2) going to be dangerous in October. They've played as well as anyone in the majors, and only their somewhat bizarre 12-21 record in one-run games has kept this from being obvious. And the presence of Robb Nen, who's been the best closer on the planet this season, could pay huge dividends in the postseason. The only thing that worries me about the Giants is shaky middle relief once you get past Felix Rodriguez.

  • It's been said, more than once, that it takes a pretty good pitcher to lose 20 games. I'm not so sure about that, but these days it does take a pretty brave pitcher to lose 20 games. There was a time, when pitchers regularly started 37 games per season and completed many of those, that losing 20 in a season wasn't particularly rare.

    But now it's been 20 years since anybody lost 20 games, and every time somebody gets close, his manager jerks him from the rotation. Maybe not this year, though. When Phillies manager Terry Francona was asked last week if he'd pull Omar Daal from the rotation, Francona said he'd only do it if Daal asked him to. And when Daal was asked if he'd ask, he replied, "I don't care about the record. The only way to get out of it is to keep pitching."

    Daal pitched well against the Giants yesterday, but his record dropped to 3-17 anyway. It'll be interesting to see if he and/or Francona change their minds. I hope they don't. Not because I have a burning desire to see a 20-game loser; rather, it's just nice to see somebody exhibiting conscious courage.

  • Call me a Costassian Traditionalist if you like, but this season's doings are making yet another great argument against the wild card.

    What's the single best thing that baseball has to offer? In this old man's opinion, nothing is better than a tight pennant race between two great teams. The second best thing? A tight pennant race between two good teams. Teams like the Mets and Braves.

    But you know what? Bud Selig and his band of merry idiots have robbed me of that simple pleasure, because in all likelihood the battle between the Mets and the Braves isn't going to mean a damn thing. The Mets currently own a four-game lead over the Diamondbacks in the wild-card standings, which makes the NL East standings significantly less interesting.

    And the American League? Everyone seems to be thrilled with the wild-card race there, but what about that? I believe that the winner of those sweepstakes will be either the Indians, the Athletics or the Red Sox ... and the latter two of those clubs are involved in "real" pennant races anyway. OK, so the Sox are six behind the Yankees, but the two clubs do have four more games against each other, four games that would carry a lot more drama if they were do-or-die for Boston.

    But they won't be. And Bob Costas is right. The wild card is a pox upon all our houses. Unless our house is in Cleveland.
  •