I realize it's been a while. Too long in fact. I don't have a good excuse, so I won't make one up.

1 - Depending on the likelihood of this story, summer of 2014 in Cooperstown could be a who's who of pitchers from the 90's.

Let's start with the obvious. Greg Maddux has been hanging around to get to 350. He's not capable of getting past the 7th inning anymore, and the Padres (his hometown team) are terrible, and not likely to immediately improve. His HoF credentials are beyond reproach, and will be a shoo-in first ballot HoFer.

Right next to him on that stage will likely be Tom Glavine. Also owning more than 300 W's, and also likely to retire at the end of this season, there will be a nice symmetry to his entering the Hall with Maddux.

You can't mention those two without adding John Smoltz. Clearly his Wins total pales in comparisson, but the whole of his accomplishments don't. Only Dennis Eckersley would scoff at his combined total of saves and wins. Only Randy Johnson has more K's amongst his peer pitchers (RC doesn't count). So combine those credentials with the necessity of MadduxGlavineSmoltz entering the HoF at the same time, and he's likely a first ballot guy. He's currently battling shoulder trouble, and has acknowledged that he has probably started his last major league game. A retirement at the end of 2008 seems likely.

Then there's the strikeout king of the generation. Randy Johnson will be 44 by the end of season. He has been effective, but not dominant this season, and has battled his own injury issues over the last few years. While he certainly could continue beyond the end of the year, he's only under contract through the end of 2008. His mid 4's ERA and declining K numbers indicate that the end of the line is likely near for Randy Johnson.

So can you imagine if Pedro leaves the game at the end of the year as well? That class will have over 16,000 strikeouts and over 1300 wins. Wow.

2 - My David Ortiz is done rant....

I've always thought of Ortiz as being a lot like Mo Vaughn. The immediate paralells are obvious. They're both left-handed-hitting, heavy-set, Red Sox first-basemen. What I didn't realize was that their career paths were eerily similar as well.

Mo Vaughn turned 27 in December 1994. At that point, he had 72 major league home-runs in 1507 ABs. David Ortiz turned 27 in December 2002. At that time, he had 58 major league home-runs in 1477 ABs.

And then they turned it on. Over the next 5 years ('95 through '99, opening day age 27 through 31), Mo Vaughn's average season featured a .313 batting average, 0.956 OPS, with 38 HRs and 118 RBIs. For '03 athrough '07 (again 27 through 31), Ortiz' average season was a .302 batting average, 1.015 OPS, with 42 HRs and 128 RBIs. In their primes, both players were high on the list of feared middle-of-the-order hitters.

And that's all the data we have on Ortiz. Entering this year, he's a career .289 hitter, with 266 HRs in 4,215 ABs. At the same time 8 years ago, Vaughn was a career .301 hitter, with 263 HRs in 4,352 major league ABs. Yes. At age 32, they're only 3 HR's apart.

So how did Mo do in 2000? Well that was his second year in Anaheim. His batting average dropped a little (.272 - his worst season since '92) but he still hit 36 HRs and drove in 117 runs. Still a very productive middle-of-the-order hitter.

And then it all went south.

He missed the entire 2001 season with a biceps injury. In 2002, he struggled with weight problems, but still hit 26 HRs. His career would end the following season due to a degenerative knee condition. After turning 32, Mo Vaughn only hit 65 more HR's.

The most disturbing part of that last paragraph to Sox fans is the mention of a "knee condition." Ortiz had to have off-season surgery to repair damaged catrilage in his knee. He says he feels fine, but given his start, you have to wonder if the knee is 100%.

I don't expect Ortiz' decline to start in ernest this year. Mo had a 36 HR year after turning 32. Ortiz should get to the 35 HR plateau for a 5th year in a row, but that will likely be accompanied by a drop in batting average. But given their similairities (in both girth and production), it wouldn't be surprising to see his numbers decline quickly after this season.

Seriously. This is a plot worthy of Jon Silverman.

The 5th and final season of The Wire begins on Sunday night. I've shared with you Bill Simmons' praise. Now LZ Granderson weighs in.

Sunday night at 8 pm. I'll have it on (in HD) if you want to come over.

This is a treat...



Nice work.

Most of my readers have heard that the Tigers pulled off a blockbuster trade over the last couple of days. They have acquired Miguel Cabrera (on the short-list for best hitter not named ARod) and Dontrelle Willis (and enigmatic talent who could be very good or very bad).

To get these two players, the Tigers had to part with the two crown jewels of their farm system. Andrew Miller was the Tigers' first round draft pick in 2006 draft, and Cameron Maybin is a raw but very talented OF. The Tigers also parted with several other lesser prospects.

Many are saying that Detroit "emptied" its farm system for this deal. While it's true that they dealt many of their higher level prospects, the Tigers need not worry about having an "empty" farm system.

To restock it, they simply need to continue their policy of drafting and signing the high level talents that other organizations consider "unsignable." In this past year's draft, in the final third of the first round, the Tigers were able to draft a high school pitcher who many considered to be the best pitcher available in the amateur draft. 26 other teams had passed on Procello based on his contract demands, but the Tigers were willing to pay. So after agreeing on a 4-year, $8 mil contract, the Tigers had what might be the best amateur pitching prospect in the country.

They then went on to draft 4 more pitchers in their next 5 picks. Their supplimental round choice (Brandon Hamilton) also signed for an above slot amount. The Tigers paid their 5th round pick (Casey Crosby) an enormous $750,000 bonus. Many felt he had 1st round talent, but because he had been offered a full scholarship to the Univ of Illinois, many organizations were leery of paying his contract demands.

Because most major league teams are afraid to pay the high signing bonus demands of top amateur talent, the teams that are willing to pay have an enormous advantage in restocking their farm systems. Yes, none of the pitching talent drafted this year by the Tigers will be major league ready in the next year or two, but in 2010, we could start to see these pitchers reach the big leagues. And that makes a pitcher like Andrew Miller expendable.

So the MLB draft, as currently structured, allows big spending organizations to be more liberal with trading their top talent. This makes them more likely swing a deal for a player like Cabrera or Santana.

How 'bout dem Cowboys?

In Joel Sherman's column in yesterday's NY post, he points out that the bonus structure in ARod's contract is dumb.

And he's right.

Remember when ARod went 3 for 27 while sitting on HR 499? Well, in addition to having the pressure of passing Mays, Ruth, Aaron and Bonds, he has another $6 mil in pressure at each milestone.

Why would the Yankees, with their seemingly unlimited dollars, put more pressure on a player whose psyche is clearly fragile? Just for the chance of saving $30 mil.

Put it this way - If you made the contract 10 years, $305 million, and ARod doesn't get to those numbers, then the entire contract (including the $275 mil guaranteed they're offering now) is bad. Not just the last $30 million.

Got the 80's list going while I'm working this morning when "Power of Love" by Huey Lewis and the News comes on. I had the following thought:

Is there a radio-play song that is more strongly associated with a movie than this one?

I mean, when you hear the Jurassic Park theme, or any of 5 JOhn-Williams-numbers from the Star Wars series, you think of those movies. But "Power of Love" absolutely screams Back to the Future to me.

The only other two that come to mind immediately are Simple Minds' "Don't You (Forget About Me)" from The Breakfast Club and "There She Goes" by The La's in So I Married an Axe Murderer. (I had to look up the artist on that one.)

"The Spygate thing has diminished what they've accomplished." - Don Shula

Excuse me?

I'm on record as not being a big fan of the way the Pats have conducted themselves this year. But how does getting caught spying in one game against a TERRIBLE (yes, all caps, that's how bad the Jets are) team diminish going 16-0?

I'm in agreement with Gregg Easterbrook on this one. That none of the other owners asked to see the NE spy tapes says to me that every team is doing something like this. Players have been quoted as saying "Oh, taping the other team's sideline is illegal?" I think it's probably accepted practice in the NFL. But the owners and commissioner just wanted this scandal to go away as fast as possible. So they quickly lowered the hammer on the Pats, destroyed the evidence, and then said, "Nothing to see behind this curtain."

Which is why Belichick should be a little pissed off that everyone has gotten so righteously indignant over the whole episode. I'm sure he's thinking "Who are they to judge? They're doing it too." That's not a good enough reason to keep Tom Brady in when you're up 38-0 in the 4th quarter, but it's right for him to be pissed.

But this Shula comment is worse than any of the other indignation we've seen. Hell, the Pats are probably the ONLY team that isn't taping the other team's sidelines at this point. And somehow their accomplishments are tainted by filming half a game against a bad team? This must be the last gasp of a man desperate to preserve what one of the more minor accolades of a hall of fame coaching career.

It's all for naught, because the Pats aren't going 16-0. They will likely be 15-0 going into week 17 when they play in the Meadowlands against the NY Giants. But they will have clinched HFA, and the game will not matter outside of some silly chase for perfection. Meanwhile, given the current standings, the game will be of great importance to the Giants. And oh, by the way, the Giants defense is currently first in the NFL in sacks.

How could Belichick possibly defend playing Brady in a game that doesn't matter against the defense that hits the quarterback more than any other defense in the league? That's simply not logical.

Matt Cassell, Reche Caldwell and Kyle Eckel aren't beating the Giants in week 17.

I'm not normally a crusader for sportsmanship. And as a Cowboy fan, I ought to want to see the Redskins humiliated.

But the display yesterday by the Patriots was shameful.

I haven't written about this yet because I thought they were within a reasonable bound of sportsmanship so far. The Kyle Eckle TD against the Cowboys was the closest thing to "running up the score" they had done, but Belichick was getting a rookie his first TD. I was ok with that. Against the Dolphins, the Pats lead was cut to 21 pts in the 4th quarter when Brady came back in. That same day, an NFL team came back from a 22 pt deficit in the 4th to eventually take the lead. So that was defendable.

But how do they defend this?

Leading 45-0 with 2:02 left in the 3rd Quarter, the Patriots had just gotten the ball after stopping the Redskins on 4th down at the NE 12. They were up 6 (yes, SIX) scores. The Redskins would need to score a TD every 3 minutes the rest of the way, and even then, they would need 3 2-pt conversion just to ti. This game was over.

And yet, here's NE's play log:

Evans run
Brady pass
Brady pass
Brady pass (end of 3rd Q)
Brady pass
Brady pass
Evans run
Brady pass
Evans run
Brady pass
Faulk run
Brady run
Faulk run
Brady pass (TD)

They threw 8 times, up 45. They threw 5 times in he 4th quarter, up 45.

The one cog they cannot afford to lose (Brady) touched the ball on 9 of 15 plays. Regardless of sportsmanship, that's just plain moronic. What's the upside in risking an injury to Brady in that situation?

The only logical answer is that the Pats and Belichick/Brady have some kind Colts-envy at this point.

Think about it. Before the Super Bowl in February, there was a legitimate Brady vs Manning debate. Rings vs Stats. I always argued that Brady was better. He won more, did enough to win with less talent around him, while Manning piled up numbers with help of a very expensive offense. Manning never won because the organization spent so much money on the offensive side of the ball (allowing Manning to play with superior talent to Brady) that there was never enough left for defense, and thus they lost. While it wasn't his fault that the D was bad, the reason the D was bad was part of the reason his offense was so good.

But then Manning beat Brady. And won the ring. Now how could you argue Brady was better? He had a couple more rings? I suppose, but the way this "rivalry" had turned in the last two years (the Colts have won the last three meetings), it was conceiveable that Brady's edge in SB rings wouldn't last long.

So now the Pats have decided to take the stats title away from Manning. The only logical explanation for Brady throwing a TD with 9 mins left in the 4th quarter yesterday is that Brady wants Manning's records.

Meanwhile, up only 17 with 13 minutes left in the game, on 3rd and goal from the 12 (a clear passing situation), the Colts ran a draw play. While I'm sure they wanted to score a TD on the play, the draw was far less likely to work than Manning dropping back to pass. But the Colts understood the bigger picture. No reason to put Manning in harm's way on a pass play. No need for him to throw a 3rd TD. No need to create enemies within the league by running up the score. Their intention was to hand the ball off, and get out with a FG.

So 9 months ago, if you had asked me if I would ever root for the Colts in an Indy vs NE game, I would have told you no chance. But now I find myself in that position.

Over the last 3 weeks, I've seen a number of articles/blog posts about what a poor job of play calling and talent utilization Brad Childress has done for the Minnesota Vikings. Here's just one example by Matt Mosley of ESPN.

Most of these articles revolve around the premise that Adrian Peterson is good, and his lower number of carries reflect a misuse of his talent by his coach.

Mosley's thesis can be found here. "In one of the most baffling play-calling displays ... the Minnesota coach put the freeze on the hottest running back in the league."

He then spends another 1000 words or so blasting Childress' play calling with broad generalities about the game. The only specific sequence Mosley cites is the Vikings' second possession of the game (Minn's 3-and-out from their own 1 in the second quarter).

My thesis is that the Dallas defense was so focused on stopping the run after the opening drive, that the play calling for the offense necessitated more pass plays.

2nd Quarter, 5:11 left. Minnesota's next possession after the 3-and-out. They have the ball at their own 21, score tied at 7. Here are the following four plays:

1st and 10 at MIN 21 (5:11) A.Peterson right tackle to MIN 22 for 1 yard (D.Ware).
2nd and 9 at MIN 22 (4:29) A.Peterson up the middle to MIN 23 for 1 yard (K.Hamlin; J.Ratliff).
3rd and 8 at MIN 23 (3:49) (Shotgun) T.Jackson pass incomplete.
4th and 8 at MIN 23 (3:44) (Punt formation) C.Kluwe punts 46 yards to DAL 31

It sure is criminal how underused Peterson was in that series. Why didn't he get the carry on 3rd and 8 after gaining a whopping 2 yards on the first two plays?

Minnesota's next possession was after receiving the opening kickoff of the second half (Minn leading 14-7). Here's their sequence:

1st and 10 at MIN 16 (14:53) C.Taylor right guard to MIN 19 for 3 yards (J.Ratliff; R.Williams).
2nd and 7 at MIN 19 (14:08) A.Peterson right end to MIN 23 for 4 yards (G.Ellis).
3rd and 3 at MIN 23 (13:26) (Shotgun) T.Jackson pass incomplete short left to T.Williamson (T.Newman). Slant from left end.
4th and 3 at MIN 23 (13:22) (Punt formation) C.Kluwe punts 42 yards to DAL 35

Maybe the play call on 3rd down should have been a run. But at that point in the game, 4 of Peterson's 6 rushes had gone for less then the necessary 3 yards. Running Peterson on 3rd and 3 was no more likely to be successful than throwing the short-slant, a high-percentage pass.

Minnesota's second possession of the 3rd Q (Minn still leading 14-7):

1st and 10 at MIN 7 (11:09) T.Jackson pass incomplete short middle [D.Ware].
PENALTY on MIN-T.Jackson, Intentional Grounding, 6 yards, enforced at MIN 7.
2nd and 16 at MIN 1 (11:03) A.Peterson right guard to MIN 2 for 1 yard (B.James).
3rd and 15 at MIN 2 (10:23) C.Taylor left tackle to MIN 2 for no gain (A.Ayodele).
4th and 15 at MIN 2 (9:47) (Punt formation) C.Kluwe punts 58 yards to DAL 40.

On the first down play, Dallas had called a run blitz with DeMarcus Ware blitzing up the middle. Peterson had lined up 7 yd behind the line of scrimmage in a single-back formation. Had he taken the handoff on the 1 (like a normal running play), Ware's presence (which forced Jackson to ground the ball) would have likely equally disrupted the running play. And in fact, on the second down play, Dallas called a similar run blitz from the other side of the line, and Chris Canty snared Peterson 2 yds deep in the endzone. Peterson was lucky to be able to get back to the 2 yd line.

Here's Minnesota's next possession (3rd Q, game tied at 14):

1st and 10 at MIN 24 (6:49) T.Jackson pass incomplete short right to V.Shiancoe (D.Ware). Ware knocked the ball down in the backfield.
2nd and 10 at MIN 24 (6:45) A.Peterson right end to MIN 26 for 2 yards (B.James).
3rd and 8 at MIN 26 (6:00) (Shotgun) T.Jackson pass short middle to B.Wade to MIN 42 for 16 yards (P.Watkins). Crossing pattern.

The play called on first down does match Mosely's criticism of Childress. However, Minnesota's previous 8 rushes (after the 20 yd TD run by Peterson) had gone for a total of 16 yds. The 2nd down carry made it 9 for 18. The Dallas blitz calls on the previous series indicated that Dallas was solely focused on stopping Minnesota's rushing attempts, and would take their chances that Tarvaris Jackson would be unable to complete any pass of significant yardage. What evidence did Childress have that a first down run here would be any more successfull than the previous 8?

On the day, Minnesota called 25 pass plays (19 pass attempts + 3 sacks + 3 scrambles by the QB). They called 23 run plays. Although that counts Minn's final 6 offensive plays, which were all passes. These took place with Minn down 10 and less than 6 minutes left, so passing was necessary. In fact, of Minn's 23 run pays, 11 went for 2 yds or less. IE Running on first down would yield 2nd 8 or worse 50% of the time. And on Average, would only yield 2nd and 6.

All too often, sportswriters fail to understand the topics which they're forced to write about. The easy plays to remember from the Minnesota game yesterday are Peterson's runs of 20, 15 and 12. It's easy to provide insight that says, "See how talented Adrian Peterson is. He ran for a 20-yd TD. He should have gotten the ball more than just those 12 carries."

But I watched the game, and I remember feeling that quite often, Peterson was inneffective. And a closer look at the play-by-play recap indicates that he had 6 carries of 1 yd or less. Half the time he carried the ball, Minnesota wasted a down. Would it have been too much to ask Mosley to write about Peterson's homerun potential, and what a shame it is that Minnesota can't find him more running space to keep him from having such a high percentage of negative plays?

Some random baseball thoughts...

1 - Listening to the Van Halen song "Why Can't this Be Love", and I caught a little Tim McCarverism.

"Only time will tell if we stand the test of time."

Seriously? Next, Van Hagar will be telling me that more multi-run innings start with a homerun than with a walk (10:05).

2 - In that same column, I noticed FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER that Dwyane Wade's name is spelled incorrectly (11:01).

Honestly. That's how it's spelled. Y before the A.

I know. I was shocked too. At no point in the last 5 years had I noticed that.

In addition to Jhonny Peralta, that support group should include Antawn Jamison and Anfernee Hardaway. And what about Brett Favre?

3 - My father remarked about the Colorado Rockies that they've forgotten what it's like to lose a baseball game. I know that logic says that the AL teams are better, and the AL representative will likely crush the Rockies. But even this 8 day layoff won't slow them down. When they start the WS on Oct 24th, the Rockies will have lost one baseball game in the last 38 days (THIRTY EIGHT!!!).

My WS prediction (against whoever comes out of the AL) is the Rockies in 5. They'll lose game 2 on the road, and that's it.

4 - I think the umpiring has been questionable, at best. Previsouly, Eric Gregg in game 5 of the '97 NLCS was the standard for bad playoff umpiring. But at least he was consistent. His strike zone that night was just big. Maddux had 9 K's, and Livan Hernandez tied the playoff record with 15 K's (just the day after Mike Mussina had set it). So it was outrageously big. But just big.

But Brian Gorman on Monday night was brutal. His strike zone reminded me of a slow-pitch softball zone. Every 3-0 pitch was a strike. No matter how high, low or off the plate it was. Specifically, the 3-0 pitch to Manny Ramirez in the top of the 6th when there were runners on 1st and 2nd with one out. According to Fox's Strike Zone graphic, the ball was 4 inches off the plate inside, and high. And in retrospect, it was a huge call. Two pitches later, Manny bounced into 6-4-3 inning-ending, rally-killing double play.

If an umpire has good mechanics, he should NEVER miss that pitch. Umpires are taught to put their nose on the high-inside corner of the strike zone. This allows the umpire correctly call the inside corner ALWAYS. This positioning allows the ump to be fair to the pitcher (correctly calling all inside strikes) and protect the batter at the same time.

But Brian Gorman, like a lot of MLB umps, was hiding behind the catcher, who was lined up over the outer half of the strike zone. I'm not sure whether they're afraid of foul balls, or whether they think it looks better to be aligned with the catcher. But at some point, MLB umps moved behind the catcher. And it's causing them to miss inside strikes (and balls).

This positioning also leads to being "buried." If the ump is on the high-inside corner, he can position himself along side the catcher rather than behind. Subsequently, he's looking past the catcher. But if the ump is directly behind the catcher, that's exactly his problem. The catcher is between him and the lower part of the strike zone. The ump is "buried" by the catcher. On Monday night, Gorman was buried. And it led to some of the worst umpiring in playoff history.

At the beginning of the year, I took the Yankees Under 97 W's, and the O's Over 73.

The Yanks would need to go 27-9 in their last 36 games, while the O's would need to lose 24 of their last 39. Both are certainly possibilities, but not likelihoods.

From my company's credit card bill from July:

07/11 07/11 7-ELEVEN 29982 Q39 LONG BEACH CA Standard Purch 7.11

Yeah. On 7/11, someone spent $7.11 in a 7-Eleven.

I could not make this up.

1 - Heard the new Matchbox 20 song yesteday. I couldn't immediately tell that it was them, and was excited that there was a new band that had this great sound.

And then I found it was them, and thought, "That makes sense." They're Greg Maddux-like in their consistent greatness. Maybe not the best at any one moment, but the body of work over the last 10+ years is hard to argue with.

2 - Don't go to a cover band jam session at 5 pm, sing along with every song for 8 hours, and expect to be able to talk for the next 3 days.

3 - How much evidence must the Feds have on Bad Newz Kennelz? The other 2 co-defendants turned state's evidence today. For the first time since Rae Carruth, we may actually see an athlete spend time in jail.

4 - I watched Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel last night. I watched the interview with Pacman Jones. What a douche that guy is. I watched a segment on dog fighting. Not so much about Mike Vick, but about the culture in general. It was gruesome, and disgusting. Then I watched the interview with Javon Walker. Supposedly it was his first and only interview about being in the limo when Darrent Williams was shot on New Year's earlier this year. Basically he caught Williams when Williams slumped over from being shot.

And then came the 4th and final segment on how, even though their tennis personalities were so different, Andre Agassi and Stefi Graf love each other so much.

And I turned it off.

Yeah. 3 stories about bad parts of our society, and I was enthralled. Could not turn away even though there were pictures of paralyzed strip-club bouncers, dead pit bulls and Javon Walker covered in blood. But then when we get munchkins running around the house and stories of buying puppies... click.

I guess I'm the reason "if it bleeds, it leads."

Um, do me a favor and look at the plate when you throw.

1 - We here at the IC pronounced the Yankees dead three backs. I'm not changing that diagnosis.

16 games against Tampa, Toronto, Tampa and Kansas City aren't changing my mind. If they're within 3 after their late August stretch of 20 games including 3 at Cleveland, 8 vs Detroit (4 and 4), 3 at Anaheim, and 3 vs Boston, I'll pronounce them revived.

2 - The O's don't suddenly look so bad. They're 8-4 since the AS break, and have only allowed 6 runs in their last 5 games. Sure, facing Oakland and Tampa will make anyone look good (see item #1), but they say you're only as good as tomorrow's starting pitcher. So right now, 2 out of 5 days, the O's are significantly better than their opponents.

Guthrie had one blip outing right after the break (7/12 vs the ChiSox), but has rebounded with two solid efforts (13 IP, 2 ER, 14 BB+H). He's still 2nd in the majors in WHIP, and the HR rate, BB rate, and K/BB ratio indicate that he's going to keep this up. He hasn't been lucky - he's just been very good.

But "very good" doesn't begin to describe Eric Bedard. Just take a look at the following two stat lines:

141 IP, 3.05 ERA, 1.09 WHIP, 175 K, 43 BB
141 IP, 2.94 ERA, 1.03 WHIP, 144 K, 34 BB

There's not a lot of difference between EB and Johan right now. 1 earned-run every 10 starts, and 1 baserunner every 20 IP. That's about it. And Bedard has been about as tough you can be since being snubbed for the All-Star game - 29 IP, 2 ER, 20 BB+H, 41 K.

Who's your AL Cy Young right now? Beckett? Bedard only trails him in Ws. Santana? See above. Haren? He's better in ERA, but he's going the wrong direction (4.20 ERA in his last 7 starts). He might not be the leader right now, but if he keeps dealing like he has in the last three weeks, he's a lock for the top 3.

But that's how lucky the Yankees are right now. E-Bizzle's next start comes AFTER the Yankees leave town this weekend.

3 - Even if they can't hold their one game lead over the Padres, the Dodgers' future is bright.

Much of the talk about position player talent in the NL West has centered on Arizona. Sure, Young, Drew, Jackson, etc have a ton of talent. But 500 miles west of there, the Dodgers' have 6 (yes, SIX) 25-and-unders who have been getting the job done this year.

Young'ns Matt Kemp (22), Andre Ethier (25), Russel Martin (24), James Loney (23), Chad Billingsley (23 on Sunday) and Jonathan Broxton (23) have shouldered much of load. Ethier started slowly, but has turned around his season with a white hot July (.400, 1.072 OPS). Martin is the unquestioned team leader - at 24. Think Derek Jeter at C. Matt Kemp was originally brought up as the right-handed platoon for Either, but he's dominated righties as well, and forced his way into the everyday lineup. Loney has been so good that the organization moved Nomar to a different position to make room.

When Kent and Gonzo depart after this year, the Dodgers' only position player over 31 will be Nomar. And he should move to 2nd to make way for Andy LaRoche (23) at 3B.

Lowe's injury last night compounds the problems generated by the absence of Schmidt and Wolf. The suddenly pitching-thin Dodgers might not be able to hold that one game lead. But there look to be plenty of division leads coming in the next 5 years.

For 2000:

91, 94, 92 and 94

What are the number wins it took to win the Wild Card in the AL in each of the last 4 years?

For the Yanks to get to 93 W's, they need to go 54-27. Certainly possible. But normally, teams that are under .500 don't start winning 2 of every 3.

Oh, and 93 might not be enough. Current leader, Detroit, is on pace for 95 W's. To get there, the Yanks would need to reel off a blistering 56-25. Over the first 81 games, nobody has played that well.

It's time or Murray Chass to start an article, "I come not to bury the Yankees, but to praise them...."

Since I used to gamble on-line with Sportsbook, they email me everyday with the "Game of the Day".

Not surprisingly, today's GotD is Game 1 of the NBA finals.

Normally, these emails provide insight to a game, and then conclude with a line like, "With all of this evidence, it's no wonder 85% of the betting public is taking Seattle and the points."

Well, today, they conclude with this beauty:

With these factors in mind, it isn't surprising that 56% of the early money is behind Cleveland (+7.5).

Um, hello...? You're a sportsbook. Your number 1 job when it comes to a point-line is to balance the money. And since tonight will likely be the single-heaviest bet NBA yet this year, you had better do a good job of it.

So no. It itsn't surprising at all the 56% of the early money is on either side.

Suppose I told you that there was a major league baseball team that had the following statistics:

228 runs scored vs 225 runs allowed
A 6-11 record in 1-run games
6th in the AL (of 14) in R's allowed
11th in the AL in R's scored (7 R's behind 7th place)

Would that be something you would be interested in?

And suppose this team had played the 13th hardest schedule in the majors and the 5th hardest in the AL?

Would that be something you would be interested in?

If the O's were, say, 8-9 in 1-run games instead of 6-11, they would be 1 game OVER .500 (26-25 instead of the 24-27 they are now). That would be right in line with their R's scored and R's against.

I know they're not winning the division. But, to paraphrase Dennis Green, the O's are who I thought they were. I still say they'll finish the year with 80 W's.