The 5.5 Hole

The St. Louis Cardinals have won two championships they had no business winning. Don't get me wrong, they played well and earned both championships once they were in the play-offs. The regular season is the focus here. The 2006 Cardinals won a terrible NL Central with only 83 wins. This year's team required a mammoth collapse by the Braves coupled with their own hot streak at the end of the season to get in. But the Cardinals are hardly the only team to win a World Series over teams who, on paper, appear to be much better.

In 2010, the Giants won 92 games, narrowly outpacing the San Diego Padres for the NL West crown. It took a Padres ten-game losing streak in August to help the Giants even make the play-offs. In 2008, the Phillies beat out four other teams with a better record, including a 97-win Rays. In 2003, the Marlins won just 91 games to clinch the Wild Card but managed to beat the 101-win Yankees for the World Series crown. Even the powerhouse Yankees won the World Series in 2000 after just 87 wins during the regular season.

You'll notice, these "upsets" all happened after the advent of the Wild Card. Yet, ever since the play-offs expanded to more than just the World Series, there have been teams winning over supposedly better teams. The 91-win Reds over the 103-win A's in 1990. The 85-win Twins over the 95-win Cardinals in 1987. The 90-win A's over the 102-win Dodgers in 1974.

Upsets are part of sports, but it seems in baseball more than any other sport, the best team on paper usually isn't the one being crowned when it's all said and done. And that makes baseball great. Like the NCAA basketball tournament, anyone can get hot at any point. More teams in the postseason doesn't make it worse. It makes it more interesting.

How much would we all care if the Yankees won their 28th Championship? There's no storyline there. No drama. No intrigue. No heroes and no villains. The shocking wins amplify the mystique that is Major League Baseball.

Congratulations Cardinals, and congratulations underdogs everywhere.

2011 provided some of the best baseball I can remember. Sure my beloved Padres did not have a 90-win season like they did in 2010, nor did they come anywhere close to even sniffing a play-off berth. But the Diamondbacks did. They turned their team around and went from worst to first. The Brewers did, and won the division for the first time since the 80's. The Cardinals overcame a huge deficit in late August to clinch the Wild Card. The Braves collapsed. The Rays reached the postseason for the third time in four years...out of the American League East...with a payroll hovering around $40 million. The Phillies rode the arms of Cliff Lee and Roy Halladay. Justin Verlander carried the Tigers to a division crown, locking up the AL Cy Young in the process (Barring some sort of travesty, of course). The Rangers and their boom sticks once again made the postseason, and once again they reached the World Series, and once again they fell short. The Yankees did what they do. And the Red Sox provided drama fit for daytime television.

2011 marked another pitcher heavy year. There were three no-hitters, and two of them were from unlikely sources. Ervin Santana tossed his no-hitter then promptly became the Angels 1A starter next to Jered Weaver. Francisco Liriano has always had great stuff, but after multiple injuries, there were questions about whether he could make it back. He answered those with his no-hitter this season. Then of course, there was Justin Verlander. Again, AL Cy Young.

2011 marked the first year in the last eleven that Albert Pujols failed to reached a .300 batting average and 100 RBI (he finished at .299 and 99 RBI). It also marked a year in which he had a remarkable recovery, further earning the nickname "The Machine." Pujols broke his right forearm and only missed two weeks.

The 2011 baseball season saw some notable employment changes. Jim Hendry in Chicago was finally let go after the Cubs futility became too much. The Cubs' former GM was credited with almost getting them to the World Series, but also with contracts like Alfonso Soriano's. Marlins manager, Edwin Rodriguez, quit in the middle of the season. After his team fell into a tailspin, he realized he was not the right man for the job. And, like a hero resurrected, Jack McKeon returned to the Florida dugout. Jim Riggleman, the manager of the Nationals, had Washington playing well, the he up and quit. Frustrated over his lame-duck status, Riggleman walked away from managing, maybe forever. Oakland replaced one Bob with another. Bob Geren was fired and Bob Melvin hired. Neither could do much to help that sinking franchise. Finally, Ozzie Guillen was let out of this contract with the White Sox and left the team with the last few games of the season remaining. He will take over the newly named Miami Marlins in 2012.

Baseball in 2011 saw two big trials against former Major Leaguers. Both related to steroids. Barry Bonds was eventually convicted of obstruction of justice after the prosecution could not prove him guilty of perjury. Roger Clemons never really had a trial. After presenting evidence they should not have, the prosectution in the Clemons trial forced a mistrial. Now, they must decide whether to, and how to, re-try Clemons.

This season also saw the deaths of 81 former players. Perhaps most notably were Mike Flannagan and Hideki Irabu's suicides, and Harmon Kilebrew's, Duke Snider's, and Dick Williams' passing.

The 2011 season saw so many things, both good and bad, including the launch of this site. About mid-way through the season, a little blog by some unknown writer popped up. The 5.5 Hole could have floundered and led me to give up. It could have attracted views from only family and close friends, which in and of itself probably would have been enough. But instead, the site attracted many more readers than I could have ever imagined in it's first few months of existence. From the random peaks in page views that I can never seem to explain no matter what amount of analytics I employ, to the constant flow of readers never letting my site go unread for even a day, the introduction of The 5.5 Hole was more successful than I could have predicted. Thank you to everyone who has read, browsed, or heck, even come to the site by mistake. By now you all know how much I love the game of baseball. I also love to write. Some people knit, some people garden, I write a blog. But it's been so much more than a hobby. This has been a passion. With each new article I write, I hope to get better, more interesting, and more informative. I hope you'll join me as the site grows and matures.

I will continue to write during the offseason and I will work on getting more exposure. My goal is to generate discussion. The comments section at the end of each post has been left largely untouched. Like a post-apocalyptic ghost town, the discussion area has been avoided. I will do what I can to increase the page views, provide interesting topics, and facilitate discussion. Because, really, nothing about baseball is one sided.

Thank you all again. I look forward to the future of The 5.5 Hole.

- Justin

In an alternate universe, David Freese is an outcast. His dropped pop-up cost the Cardinals the World Series. But in the real world, he is a redemption story. His mistake was not a huge one. It wasn't on the same level as Buckner, but it was a mistake on the grandest of stages. It was a mistake Freese was able to overcome with an amazing offensive performance.

The kid from St. Louis seemed to come from nowhere in the NLCS. In fact, he was interviewed after winning the NLCS MVP and asked how it felt being the MVP on a team with players like Pujols, Holliday, and Berkman. Well, he can be asked that question again. Berkman had an impressive World Series, Pujols had a three home run night, and while ineffective Holliday is a threat every time he steps to the plate. But it was Freese who was crowned MVP of the World Series.

As you all know by now, Freese hit a game-tying triple in Game Six followed later by a game-winning home run. In Game Seven, with the Cardinals already in a 2-0 hole before they even game to bat, things were starting to look bleak. But Freese, again, knocked in the game-tying runs with two outs. From there, the Cardinals never looked back and Freese earned the hardware.

Pretty good for a guy with 98 career RBI in three seasons. Pretty good for a guy making $416,000 a year. He's quickly becoming one of the best young players in the league. In his first three seasons in the league, Freese has compiled a .298/.354/.429 triple slash. At 28, Freese has plenty of years ahead of him. And playing in his hometown, Freese may be able to provide Cardinals fans a decent replacement for their star if Pujols decides to leave for greener pastures.

David Freese became the sixth person to win the NLCS MVP and World Series MVP in the same postseason under it's current format. He almost single-handedly lead the Cardinals to their 11th World Championship. His heroics helped provide one of the greatest World Series games in history. And he will forever be remembered for it. (After Game Six, the Hall of Fame asked for his bat. Freese, claiming he was not superstitious, gave them the bat and used a new one for Game Seven. So, apparently the bat had very little to do with Freese's success)

Now, the calendar turns to November. Winter is peeking around the corner ready to turn ballfields across the country to frozen tundras. We have over 100 days before pitchers and catchers report. Sure there will be off-season story lines to follow, but even without those, this World Series will give us something to remember. We can hold on to Freese's monstrous World Series as the fuel to get us through baseball's hibernation period that is winter.

I can't imagine the fan bases in Texas and St. Louis slept a wink last night.  It's now the morning after one of the greatest, if not the greatest, World Series games in history.  It was sloppy, competitive, offensive heavy, dramatic, and beautiful.  It was a game that saw the Cardinals trailing by two in the ninth, down to their final strike.  It was a game that found the Cardinals again trailing by two in the tenth, again down to their final strike.  In both cases, the Cardinals stood in there, continued to fight, and tied the game.  Which of course led to the redemption of all redemption.  David Freese's walk-off game six home run will be forever remembered with some of the most famous World Series home runs.  Maybe more so because he also dropped a pop-up on the in-field earlier in the game. 

No one knows for certain who will win Game Seven tonight, but one thing is certain; the season will come to an end tonight.  Perhaps these two teams will continue to pitch and slug and field their way to the longest Game Seven in history.  Maybe they will play through the night and finish Game Seven in the wee hours of Saturday morning.  I wouldn't put any of this past these two teams.  It's fitting that we have been given this great World Series after the last day of the season provided the greatest single day of baseball's regular season.  It's also sad that it has to end.

This is not a season recap.  This is just a reminder of how great baseball can be.  I was reminded by someone that had last night's game been a football game, the trailing team never would have had a shot to come back.  In football, the leading team would take a few knees and run out the clock.  Baseball's lack of a game clock makes it great.  No other sport allows for the momentum swings as quickly as baseball.  After the Cardinals tied the game in the bottom of the ninth, it would have been easy for the Rangers to get lost in momentum of the Cardinals.  But they didn't. Josh Hamilton stepped to the plate and hit a two-run home run that would have been his crowning achievement and the moment that would make his story the perfect movie.  Momentum swing, Rangers.  Then, the Cardinals again came back and tied the game in the bottom of the tenth.

There will be more to write once the season ends tonight.  One team will have a magical end to a season-long story straight from a fairytale.  One team will come up shorts after making an improbable run.  No matter the case, the World Series Champion this season will be a team no one really saw coming.  

Let me start with this disclaimer: I am an admitted Albert Pujols apologist.  I love everything about the guy.  His performance on the field, the way he carries himself, his philanthropic contributions.  Everything.  So, as you read this piece about Pujols' contract negotiations you can write it off.  Or, you can love it and appreciate the logic.  I believe you will do the second thing.

I'll start by reminding everyone that we live in a different world than those of athletes.  If we pass judgement because we can't fathom the amount of money athletes make, we don't really have a leg to stand on in the argument.  Yet, that doesn't seem to be the main issue many people have with Pujols and the contract negotiations.  It would seem that most people are put off by Pujols' rejection of $200 million.  But why?

Pujols signed his current contract after the 2003 season.  He would make $13.875 a year million for the next eight years.  Pujols was coming off a .329/.403/.610 season in 2001, a .314/.394/.561 season in 2002, and a .359/.439/.667 season in 2003.  That's a pretty good start to a career, but no one could have known that Pujols would carry these types of number in every year of his career.  $13.875 million a year seemed fair.  But it quickly became clear that Pujols was the greatest player in the game.  Yet, his salary was being outpaced by players like Ryan Howard, Mark Teixiera, and even Miguel Cabrera.  Inferior players were making more than Pujols (inferior but still of All Star quality).  Ryan Howard is making $25 million a year.  Mark Teixeira is making $22.5 million a year.  Miguel Cabrera is making $19 million a year.  Pujols is better than all of them.

But Pujols played out his contract.  He didn't demand a trade to a team willing to pay him more immediately.  He didn't demand a new contract.  He played it out.  Now that it's time for him to renegotiate, he is getting flak for wanting to see what he's worth on the open market.

Last we heard, the Cardinals had reportedly offered something like eight years, $200 million.  That equates to $25 million a year.  Pujols was reportedly looking for ten years, $300 million.  So he rejected $200 million.  If any team is willing to pay him more, why shouldn't he take it? 

Perspective check:
You're working in an office making $40,000 a year.  From everything you've heard, everyone acknowledges you as the best at what you do, including other companies.  There are other employees, employees who are not as good as you, who make more.  Say you find out a few of these employees within your own company and at other companies are making 44% more than you.  That comes to roughly $57,000 and some change.  Now you know other companies want you and are willing to pay you.  Is there anything wrong with demanding say $67,000?  You're better, companies want you.  It would seem the market would place at least that value on you.  Now, let's assume your own company offers you the $57,000 others are making who clearly are inferior in performance.  Would anyone second guess your decision to test the market and see if you can in fact get the $67,000 elsewhere?

I know many of you may have stopped reading, shocked that I am using numbers with no baseball statistical relevance, but for those of you who continued on, you probably realized this is a simplified version of Pujols' situation using similar percentages scaled back to what we in middle-class America can understand.  When you look at it in terms of numbers we are familiar with, it doesn't seem so bad.  When you look at from a percentage standpoint, it doesn't look so bad. Ryan Howard is making 44% more than Pujols per year.  Pujols is better.  He should be paid more than Howard.  Pujols has asked to be paid 16.67% more than Howard.  Pretty reasonable considering his performance over the years.

So, nothing Pujols has asked seems out of line.  If you have issue with it, you simply have issue with contracts in baseball that have set the precedent.  You cannot blame Pujols for what other teams chose to pay players like Howard, Teixeira, and Cabrera. 

Now that I have blown your mind with numbers, go forth and praise Pujols, start a telethon to help him raise the money he should be earning, and bow at his feet.  Or continue to dislike him because he turned down $200 million.  I've said my piece.

While the rest of the world is discussing telephones - for the first time since their invention I might add - and LaRussa's mistakes, I want to talk about Ron Washington's performance as a manager. I'm not going to delve into every shift, steal, bunt, or walk. I'll leave that for all those doing the same with LaRussa right now. I'd rather look at how Washington got to where he is and how his team plays under him.

Washington makes some interesting moves, there's no question about that. Napoli eighth anyone? And a lot of them work out. Again, Napoli eighth anyone? But to credit simple changes to the lineup as the source of the Rangers success would be narrow-minded. The truth lies with the combination of player attitude, skill, coaching attitudes, and managerial decisions.

You see it while he's dancing/running in place like a six year old on a sugar high. You see it with each and every player lining the top of the dugout steps. You see it in the heartfelt speeches and the playful slaps. You see it on the monstrous home runs and deadened bunts. The Rangers are a little different.

Ron Washington has helped develop a loose, playful, energetic, and determined team. His combination of reliance on good 'ol fashion American League power and classic National League strategy can really only be compared to Mike Scioscia's Angels. But for his succes, Wash is a man who's also faced his fair share of struggles.

A slip-up. A simple mistake. A one time mistake by Washington's account. That's all it took to threaten his job and his life. Washington knew nothing besides baseball. If a failed drug test, a positive result for cocaine he had used at a party, were to take his job, what would Washington do? Well, it didn't. He admitted the mistake, faced the music, was destroyed in the media, and supported by his team. That's who he is - a man who makes mistakes but does right by people. In turn, they do right by him.

With his job still firmly in his grasp, Wash led the Rangers to the World Series in 2010 and again here in 2011. He has done so not by abiding by sabermetric formulas or statistics. He has done it his way. Through hunches, motivation, and support. He's the biggest cheerleader in the dugout, un-afraid to show emotion like most managers are. He'll tell you what you did wrong with some inspirational words and a pat on the rear end. He manages with passion.

And he is often criticized still. But that doesn't matter. Ron Washington can continue to manage the way he wants. His success speaks for itself.

Why is it so hard for us to dub someone the greatest of all time? Is the characterization really based so much on opinion that a consensus cannot be reached? Perhaps. But I thunk it goes beyond that. People are afraid. They do not want to dust off a crown given to someone long ago, pass it on to the next great thing, only to have that crown yanked away and given to someone new. The debates about the greatest of all time are so historically based, not many are willing to pluck a modern player from the pool and throw them into the discussion. Instead, people will use phrases like "one of the greatest," or "the greatest of his time," or "in the discussion as one of the best."

These debates are not limited to sports. The same restrictions apply when talking about the greatest politicians, greatest writers, greatest actors, and greatest artists. Modern men and women are often compared to the old timers, but rarely vaulted to the top. DeNiro is this generation's Brando, or Mitch Albom is good, but he's no Hemmingway. Albert Pujols is one of the modern masterpieces for which most are afraid to push to the top.

The problem with naming someone the greatest of all time lies in two parts. One, how does one classify the greatest, empirically or all-encompassing. And two, how does one overcome the lore created by those who no longer play (and in many cases, no longer walk this earth)? The first problem can be overcome. The second usually cannot.

Albert Pujols is generally considered the greatest player in the game today, but change that discussion from a current focus to a historical one, and very few will jump at naming Pujols the greatest. I will not shy away from it though. There is no question in my mind that, like Michael Jordan and basketball, Albert Pujols is the greatest to ever play baseball.

His statistics speak for themselves. He is a fearless hitter, both determined and driven. Barring extensive stints on the disabled list, Pujols will break countless records. He is a shoe-in for the Hall of Fame. He makes those who doubt him look foolish.  But what sets him apart from the classics?  Babe Ruth, Ted Williams, Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, Mickey Mantle.  The list can go on.  But isn't that the point?  If you can talk about each of those players in the same breath, what sets them apart from each other?  Pujols has had in-arguably the greatest eleven years to start a career ever.  And at 31, he has a good six to seven years of dominance ahead of him.  Even beyond that, he could still be a contributor.  No one knows for sure how long Pujols will play, but would anyone doubt he could do it into his forties?

If Pujols performs at even 75% of his career average, and does so for the next six years, he will amass 647 home runs, 1,899 RBI, and 2,961 hits.  But who really thinks he will only go six more years?  Who really thinks he can only perform at 75% of his career numbers?  But the statistics are only part of the equation. 

No one else has played the game like him.  He approaches the game knowing -- not thinking, not hoping -- but knowing he is the best.  Albert Pujols dominates like no one we have ever seen or read about.  Because honestly, isn't that the problem?  We have only read about many of the greats.  Pujols in person must be compared to Ruth on paper or film.  He must be compared to stories of Williams and Mays.  The man must stand up to the legends.  And for his entire career he has.  So, at risk of breaking unwritten rules, at the risk of crossing hidden lines, I can admit that Pujols is the greatest of all time. 

Has there ever been a time when one man's decision had such a large effect on those around him?  Aside from politics, and keeping our conversation focused on baseball, I don't think so.  When Theo Epstein's hiring as the Chicago Cubs President is announced on Tuesday, it will create a ripple effect through baseball unlike any ever seen before. 

Long before Epstein made it known that he was planning on leaving Boston, the rumors were there.  As his club collapsed in September, the rumors turned into suggestions from some, demands from others.  Those who felt bad for Epstein going through the losing streak thought it best if he cut ties.  Those rooting for the Sox, the ones most rabid after the collapse, demanded Epstein leave town.  He had used up all his talents and charm.  Yet, no matter what anyone suggested or demanded, the Red Sox did not want Epstein to leave.  Outwardly, after it became clear that he would not be returning, unnamed Red Sox employees began to change their tune on Epstein's tenure in Boston.  He had over-spent, not developed players well, and missed on many occassions.  While much of this may be true, he also won two World Series in a town that had fell under a Championship drought unlike any baseball had seen (except in Chicago). 

As yesterday's teaser of a press release came out, all the rumors of who would be coming with Epstein, of who would replace him, of moves to fill the voids began to fall into reality.  And these moves will shake the landscape of the entire League like a nationwide earthquake.  For better or worse, the names and faces we knew, and those we didn't, will be shuffled up and sprayed all over the fields and offices of baseball like a game of 52 pick-up.  Below is a glimpse of just a few of the known (or rumored) changes we will see. 

Theo Epstein:

The wunderkind, boy-prodigy, and savior of Boston is gone.  He takes over the Chicago Cubs in a position with more control, more power, and more questions.  He will be announced as the Cubs' President Tuesday, starting a new era in Chicago.  He will also be tasked with building a front office capable of evaluating players, employees, ticket sales, and promotions.  And that starts at the GM position, leading us to Jed Hoyer.

Jed Hoyer:

The former Epstein assistant, and friend, will be announced officially on Tuesday as the new General Manager of the Cubs.  The clubs released joint statements yesterday confirming as much.  Hoyer's tenure with San Diego was much too short for an real reflection on his talent.  It is clear that he has a determination and drive for success.  He clearly understood what it meant to be the GM of a small-market club.  He made moves that would easily be classified under the buy low-sell high category.  Unfortunately, many of those moves failed to pan out.  Given slightly more resources, more time, and the expert tutelage of Theo Epstein, Hoyer may develop into one of the game's best GM's.  But he, like Epstein, will be leaving a hole at his former position. 

Josh Byrnes:

Byrnes was hired by Jeff Moorad as GM when both were in Arizona.  Moorad later began the long process of buying the San Diego Padres in installment payments.  He left Byrnes to fend for himself in Arizona and hired Jed Hoyer because, well, he needed a GM.   Byrnes had some success in Arizona, but he also had some pretty famous failures.  He help the Diamondbacks to a 2007 National League Championship appearance.  Unfortunately, he only guided the club to one more winning season during his tenure, an 82-80 season in 2008.  He was fired in the middle of the 2010 season and replaced by former Padres GM Kevin Towers.  Byrnes is considered by most to be a very intelligent executive.  He seems to know what it takes to put together a winning ballclub on paper.  In practice though, he swung and missed on as many moves and he connected with.  I will not throw the Dan Harren trade in the swing and miss category.  Look at what he did for the Angels this season.  I will, however, point out the Eric Byrnes contract.  Yes, that Eric Byrnes who doesn't even play professional baseball anymore.  Perhaps, Josh Byrnes was left in a situation beyond his control.  Perhaps, a promotion to GM under Jeff Moorad in San Diego will be beneficial.  But time will only tell.  As the Padres Executive Vice President, there has not been enough to show whether he will succeed as the Padres GM. 

Ben Cherrington:

When Theo Epstein attempted to leave Boston in 2005, Ben Cherrington and Jed Hoyer were tasked with sharing the General Manager duties.  They would be co-GM's.  As we all know, Epstein chose to return to Boston, won another World Series with the club, and left Cherrington waiting for his chance.  That chance appears to be imminent.  I have not heard anyone quote a source who said the Red Sox would go in any other direction than Cherrington as their next GM.  Cherrington has been with Boston for 14 years now, knows the system well, and has been assisting Theo Epstein every step of the way.  He is the natural choice for the position.  Cherrrington shares in many of Epstein's beliefs in player development, data analysis, and how to develop wins in general.  No one truly knows what his relationship with Larry Luchino, the Red Sox President and CEO, is and how it will further take shape as Cherrington takes the helm as GM.  However, Cherrington has had years to adapt and work alongside Luchino.  Ben Cherrington's first order of business?  Salvaging a sinking Boston ship that has seen more than its fair share of drama since September 1st.

Mike Quade:

While nothing official has been announced, or even discussed for all I know, it is widely thought that Epstein's first order of business once the front office is in place will be to find a new manager.  Many will say Quade never had a chance.  He was handed a group of players that no manager could win with.  But that's not the issue.  Quade didn't have to win with them.  He had to perform and not make Cubs fans embarrassed for rooting for these players.  He had to take differing personalities and help them mesh in the clubhouse and on the field.  A few Carlos Zambrano blow-ups, some dugout fights, a short-live retirement, and a disqualification later it has become clear that Quade is not the guy to make things come together in Chicago. 

A.J. Hinch:

The front office executive-turned Major League manager-turned lower level executive is due for a promotion if Josh Byrnes take over General Manager duties.  Hinch started with the Diamondbacks in the front office as the Director of Player Development.  In May of 2009 he was promoted from the front office to the clubhouse when he took over skipper duties.  There were questions from the start.  Hinch lacked any real coaching experience.  He was a former player, but never any type of on-field coach.  Those questions proved to be based on real concerns as Hinch suffered through two losing seasons before being dumped along with Josh Byrnes.  The Padres and Jeff Moorad quickly scooped him up and made him the Vice President of Player Development.  When Hoyer leaves, he is expected to take his assistant GM, Jason Mcleod with him.  This will open an assistant GM position that will likely be filled by Hinch.

Jason McLeod: 

The current assistant General Manager of the Padres is expected to continue his same duties under Jed Hoyer in Chicago.  The Cubs and the Padres have already reached a compensation and "pilfering" agreement in which the Cubs agree to leave the rest of the Padres front office alone.  McLeod is most notable for his scouting ability.  While under Epstein and Hoyer in Boston he found Dustin Pedroia, Clay Buchholz,  Jed Lowrie, and Jacoby Ellsbury.  While it's still too early to tell how his drafts in San Diego will pan out, many consider the Padres farm system to be one of the best.  McLeod will be missed in San Diego, but his replacement, A.J. Hinch, has a knack for developing talent. 

John Lackey:

So far, Lackey's potential move to San Diego is only rumored.  It seemed certain prior to talks with the Cubs and Red Sox fell apart regarding Epstein and compensation.  If the Red Sox do eat the majority of Lackey's contract and ship him off to San Diego, Lackey will just be another domino to fall.  Lackey is much maligned in Boston right now.  He may benefit from a reunion with Bud Black, the former Angels pitching coach while Lackey pitched in Los Angeles.  A pitcher-friendly ballpark would help him return to form much like it has for Aaron Harang and Jon Garland.

The Rest:

Andrew Friedman of Tampa Bay will, by all accounts, remain with Tampa now that the Cubs have just about figured out their entire front office.  Friedman was considered by some and even better choice than Epstein for GM.  However, it appears the Rays will get to keep the man who has led them to the postseason three of the last four years with a payroll that ranked in the bottom fourth of all of baseball.  

The Yankees will hold on to Brian Cashman who was rumored for the Cubs job as well.  The club and Cashman still seem to have a good relationship, so his remaining time in New York should not be overshadowed by his connection to the Cubs' GM search. 

The lower-level executives of both the Padres front office and the Red Sox front office will still need to be worked out.  For example, A.J. Hinch will need to be replaced.  Ben Cherrington and other will need to be replaced in Boston.

The amount of job openings and employee moves generated by one man's decision are astounding.  The pressure on Epstein to win in Chicago will be huge, while the pressure on Cherrington in Boston might actually lighten.  Byrnes will feel little pressure to start in San Diego.  Overall, the moves do not seem bad for baseball.  The talent was not funneled into one team, but spread out across the League and across the nation.  Epstein's move will forever be remembers as one of, if not the biggest, ripple-effect move in baseball history.

In 8-10 years my son will be developing normal boyhood crushes on star athletes. If my evil plan works and my son is as huge a baseball fan as I am, his crushes will be on baseball players. I find myself wondering what these athletes will mean to my son. What will they represent? What will they teach?

In 8-10 years, John Lackey, Jon Lester, and Josh Beckett will be out of the game, retired, and free to eat as much chicken and drink as much beer as they'd like. But they will be replaced. They'll be replaced by others who stand defiantly by the philosophy that athletes are not role models. These new athletes will further the concept that baseball and life are separate. Two things that should never be intermingled. These players, like those of today, will continue to be wrong.

What many, not all, but many, players forget is that they're not entitled because they can swing the bat or throw a ball. They forget that they're always representing the club. They're always representing the league. And they're always playing for the fans, no one else. In a public job, employees are always the face of their employer. In private jobs, this often rings true too. Anything a player does that the fans see represents not just that player but the league.

I know I sound like a cynical, disenfranchised fan. But the truth is far from that. I will continue to watch the games. I will continue to enjoy the sport. I simply will not respect the players who walk all over that respect. Unfortunately, my son will not have that type of restraint or have the decision-making skills to choose who he roots for and idolizes. Not at 8. Not at 10.

So, in the future, when my son is old enough to become a fanatic, I can only hope the players he loves are worthy of that love. I don't expect all players to be saints. I don't have a problem with forgiving players who earn that forgiveness (and not just by their performances on the field). What I hope for is just a collective rejection of behavior that shatters the faith and respect we all have in these players.

My son's role models will be others than just myself (no matter how much I'd like that to be true). It will be my job to weed out those role models not worthy of his admiration.

The popularity of baseball is constantly questioned, by myself included. I wrote a three part analysis about baseball's popularity earlier this year. I even jumped on a certain bandwagon during that analysis, but have since decided to think for myself and have backed off that opinion. What opinion, you ask? That baseball needs to shorten its season.

Gene Wojceichowski of ESPN wrote an article about how to "fix" the World Series. What he failed to realize, or acknowledge, is that he was writing about baseball as a whole, not just the World Series. Wojceichowski makes some genuinely good suggestions in his piece (i.e. Expanding instant replay and having larger pre-game ceremonies), but he also falls into the same trap that many writers do when discussing fixes for the game. He suggests shortening the regular season, perhaps back to the 154 games played for four decades early on, and he suggests shortening the LCS and World Series to five-game series'.

Let me first start by asking a simple question: Are fewer people watching the baseball, and the World Series, because it ends on October 27th instead of October 15th? Of course not. If we end the season and postseason by October 15th, will baseball gain back the 20-plus million television viewers it lost since its peak in the 1970's. Clearly, the length of the season is not the problem. People also do not just suddenly get bored because a play-off series is now seven games instead of five. Check the division series ratings (a five-game series) verse the World Series ratings (a seven-game series).


Wojceichowski goes on to suggest limiting postseason rosters to 10 pitchers in an effort to speed up the game, and to flip-flop the DH rules and have the National League use it at home and the American League use a pitcher when they're at home. While I agree baseball has gotten too long, reducing the play-off pitching roster does not change anything and won't increase the game's popularity. People like Tony LaRussa will just use every bullpen pitcher he has instead of saving some for the next game. And the DH idea is a gimmick you'd expect to see in Minor League Baseball, not the MLB. Neither of these two ideas will change television ratings with baseball.

Many, Bud Selig included, will argue that baseball is at the height of popularity now. But those of us with a realistic view of the sport's popularity (and I would include Wojceichowski in this group), understand that baseball peaked in the late 70's, was strong in the 80's, started to fall off in the 90's, and has now become the sport of choice only for die-hard baseball fans. The problem is not based in the format of the game, the play-off system, or the length of the season. The problem is with promotion.

Has football always been as insanely popular as it is now? Absolutely not. The game itself has remained essentially the same for the past 40 years, as has baseball. Yet, football has steadily increased in popularity, taking market share from baseball. Why? Because of promotion. The NFL promotes itself better than any sports league ever has. They jumped on the Internet well before baseball, they used celebrities to market the sport long before baseball, and they have shown fans why football is fun much better than baseball has done with their fans.

Sports are a business. They have mission statements, balance sheets, investors, revenue, and profits. They have employees, customers, and stakeholders. Yet, not every league is managed as such. The NFL has business men and women running the show while baseball has loyalists, purists, and lame ducks running their league. So don't blame the game itself for popularity problems. Blame how the sport is run. Blame the people who are charged with making it a popular sport. Blame Major League Baseball - the business.

One team is owned by the only man to have tossed seven no-hitters.  The only man to have struck out more than 5,000 batters.  The only man to have beat the heck out of Robin Ventura.  OK, that last one has little to do with baseball, but still proves Nolan Ryan's toughness.  The Rangers were built to pitch.  "New" philosophies were introduced by Ryan and his management team.  Pitchers would go longer in games.  There would be less focus on pitch counts and more focus on results.  They were going to win the way the Giants beat them in 2010; with pitching. 

The other team started the year with two legitimate Cy Young candidates in Adam Wainwright and Chris Carpenter.  They had a potent offense, sure, but they also boasted a pitching coach who churned out four Cy Young award winners (LaMarr Hoyt, Bob Welch, Dennis Eckersley, and Chris Carpenter).  They were managed by a man who focuses so much on pitching, he's been known to change pitchers in the middle of an at-bat.  They were going to breeze through this season and the play-offs on the strengths of their arms. 

Then they had to play the games.  Adam Wainwright blew out his arm.  The Rangers were unable to re-sign Cliff Lee.  And both teams finished the year outside the top-ten in ERA, and strikeouts.  Neither team was horrible at pitching, but neither team was great.  Yet, their offenses clicked at the right time.  The Cardinals overcame an eight-game deficit in September to take the Wild Card while the Rangers fought off the Angels and their perennially competitive ways. 

Two teams who were seemingly built on pitching, succeeded and plowed through the postseason on everything but. The Rangers put together a disappointing 4.40 ERA during the postseason so far.  The Cardinals did not fair much better.  They posted a 4.27 ERA.  Their offenses fared a bit better.  The Rangers scored a total of 55 runs.  The Cardinals scored 62. 

The second year into what many have dubbed "The Pitchers' Era" has provided a postseason with very little pitching dominance.  The World Series will likely be much of the same.  The Rangers, and Nelson Cruz specifically, are so locked in, their offense doesn't seem like it's going to let up.  The Cardinals, with the barber-shop quartet of Pujols, Berkman, Holliday, and Freese, should light up the scoreboards with regularity.  So, keep plenty of pencils on hand  if you plan to keep score.  Your scorecard will be marked up more than a high school geometry test.

Jose Valverde's season is hanging on by a thread. The Tigers season is hanging on by a thread. This all because of an 11th inning meltdown in which Valverde allowed a 4-spot to the Texas Rangers. Many casual fans argue that a closer shouldn't be brought in to the game in a non-save situation, while many writers and analysts argue that theory is completely bogus. What's the truth?

This is a debate based as much in opinion as in fact. Let's start from the opinion side of things and see if we can get an idea as to which side this debate may be leaning. Fans argue that the closer role (i.e. coming into the ninth inning with a slim lead and slamming the door) is a pressure cooker type role that can't be duplicated in any other in-game scenario. Thus, as the theory goes, when a closer is thrust into a non-save situation the mentality of said closer is different. This is likely not a conscious choice by the closer to go in with a different mindset, but the theory argues it happens nonetheless. If you flat out disagree with this theory, I caution you. It may hold more weight than many give it credit.

Take, for example, two separate projects at work. One has a tight deadline with a lot riding on it. The other is not nearly as important, has a longer deadline, but still needs to get done. When working on the stressful, tight deadline project, your focus and mentality will probably be much different than when working on the project with a lengthier timeline. Now imagine your only job is a continuous slew of important projects with tight deadlines and lots of stress, but you have just been asked to work on the other type of project. Think there'd be a change in your approach whether you mean there to be or not?

Writers and baseball analysts assume that a pitcher is a pitcher. If they make their pitches, the scenario shouldn't matter. That's sound logic too. Forget the inning. Forget the score. Any pitcher, at any time can succeed as long as he makes the right pitches. Yet, is it really that simple? The mental aspect to playing baseball is fascinating and often overlooked.

Let's take Jose Valverde for example. As of August 18, 2011, Jose Valverde's stats in save situations looked like this:

35/35 in saves, 0.51 ERA, 0.971 WHIP.

In non-save situations?

21 games, 2-4 record, 17 runs, 6.88 ERA, 1.80 WHIP.

Pretty remarkable difference, right? Yet, these numbers are so often brushed aside it's startling. The argument many will make is, who would you rather have, your closer or someone else? Well, let's look at some other closers around the league. These are all career numbers as published by The Closer News.

Heath Bell:
Save situation - 2.13 ERA/1.05 WHIP
Non-save situation - 3.60 ERA/1.53 WHIP

Brian Wilson:
Save situation - 2.63 ERA/1.43 WHIP
Non-save situation - 4.50 ERA/1.60 WHIP

Jonathan Papelbon:
Save situation - 2.08 ERA/0.86 WHIP
Non-save situation - 4.03 ERA/1.03 WHIP

J.J. Putz:
Save situation - 2.08 ERA/0.98 WHIP
Non-save situation - 4.91 ERA/1.00 WHIP

These are just a few closers around the league, but the change in performance is drastic. I understand that there are sure to be closers who perform the same in save situations and non-save situations as there are also probably closers who perform better in save situations, but when you have so many closers who clearly struggle in non-save situations, it's time to stop brushing off the possibility that closers should not be brought in in non-save situations.

After all is said and done here, I give the edge to fan theory. Writers and analysts can be as condescending as they'd like when shooting down these theories, but fact supports at least a closer look.

I love baseball. I love do-or-die elimination games, extra innings, and pitcher's duels. I love clutch hits, great plays, and winning runs.

From the last day of the season on, baseball has been absolutely fantastic. The greatest single regular season day in baseball history has been followed up with division series' in both leagues for the ages. There were no sweeps, no easy advancements. The Rays and the Rangers were the only series not to go the full five games. But each game was intense and exciting. Two games in that series came down to some bottom of the ninth drama, and three out of the four games were decided by 2 runs or less. And that was just the series that DIDN'T end in a game five matchup.

The Yankees got the matchup they wanted in the Division Series when they hosted the Tigers, but quickly found themselves down two games to one. The juggernaut Yankees threw CC Sabathia in Game One and the Tigers threw the soon-to-be unanimous Cy Young pick Justin Verlander. They both got through one inning, then the rain came and erased a matchup most of the baseball world had been anticipating from the second the matchups were announced.

With the series knotted up at one game a piece, we finally got that matchup we had been looking forward to so much. But the offense stole the show. The game ended with a Tigers 5-4 win and pushed the Yankees to the brink of elimination with perhaps their worst pitcher slated to start Game Four.

AJ Burnett did start Game Four despite the collective groans from all of New York City. And he out-pitched even what he could have expected. A solo blast was all he gave up, and he powered the Yankees to a Game Five at home. And what a Game Five it was. Every pitch was important. Every pitch had fans on the edges of their seats. Just as the Tigers looked like they were going to pull away, the Yankees pulled to within one and were still threatening.

Joaquin Benoit threw some of the most exciting pitches anyone will ever get in a ball game. One missed spot could have spelled the end to the Tigers season, but he located them all, and calmly got the Tigers out of the inning, bridging the gap to Jose Valverde who hadn't blown a save all season long. And that trend continued as he closed out the series with a strikeout of Alex Rodriguez.

If that excitement was too much for you, grab yourself a pace-maker because there were two more Game Fives left to play.

The Brewers and the Diamondbacks met in the division series like twins separated at birth. These teams both have new managers, both had turned their seasons around, and both got surprisingly dominant pitching all season long. For every Ryan Braun and Prince Fielder there was a Justin Upton and Paul Goldschmidt. For every Zach Greinke and Yovani Gallardo, there was an Ian Kennedy and Daniel Hudson.

And when these twins, separated at birth, met this postseason, they showed fans the love and passion only baseball can bring. Nyjer Morgan was the fuel that powered a Brewers team full of young, dedicated players. Kirk Gibson's attitude shoved dysfunctional teammates together and turned the Diamondbacks into one of the closest clubhouses in baseball. All this translated to greatness on the field. Both the Brewers fans and the Diamondbacks fans matched each other's intensity. And like any great teams, the home games were won by the home teams.

When Game Five arrived, the fans outside of Arizona and Wisconsin didn't want the series to end. And it seemed the teams didn't either. The Diamondbacks jumped out to an early lead, then the Brewers leap-frogged in front. After squandering a bases-loaded situation in the eighth, it looked like the Diamondbacks season would be coming to an end, but they roared back to tie it in the ninth. But the never-say-die attitude and the power drawn from the passionate Brewers fans would not allow them to lose. In the bottom of the tenth the Brewers scored and propelled themselves to their first play-off series win since 1982.

Finally, the Cardinals and Phillies capped off the slew of Game Fives.

After the Cardinals were out-scored 14-3 in the last four innings of Game One and first three innings of Game Two combined, it would have been easy for the Cardinals to lay down and act as the welcome mat to the League Championship Series for the Phillies. But they didn't. The Cardinals stormed back and won Game Two.

Back in St. Louis, the Phillies took Game Three and pushed the Cardinals to the brink of elimination. But with the help of a newly dubbed "rally squirrel" who raced across home plate just as Roy Oswalt was delivering his pitch, the Cardinals forced Game Five.

Game Five was a matchup of old friends and Cy Young winners. Both Roy Halladay and Chris Carpenter were pitching on full rest and had been at the tops of their games down the final stretch of the season. The pitting of Halladay against Carpenter was like something from a movie script. These two were good friends coming up through the Blue Jays organization and both always wanted to get better. Well, they did and they faced each other in this incredible elimination game.

Halladay made two mistakes in the first inning but was dominant throughout the rest of his eight innings. On any other night an eight inning, one run performance would likely have given the Phillies the win, but Chris Carpenter was better. Carpenter tossed a three-hit, complete game shut-out. His performance can be classified as one of the best in postseason history. Now, the Cardinals move on to face the Brewers.

This postseason has lived up to everything play-off baseball should be. Friends facing each other for the right to keep playing, clutch home runs when a team seems down and out, and payrolls that don't rank in the top-five in all of baseball.

Bring on the League Championship Series.

Someone impersonating AJ Burnett was pitching for the Yankees last night. Well, to be fair AJ Burnett was clearly pitching in the first inning when wildness allowed the bases to be loaded. Curtis Granderson saved him from a bases-clearing double. But after that, Burnett seemed like a different pitcher.

Through 5 2/3 innings, Burnett allowed just a solo home run and 4 hits. Coming into this game, Burnett's postseason road ERA was 10.50. Last night it was 1.59. While it was only one start, it was the biggest start of AJ Burnett's Yankee career. Pitching in an elimination game on the road, Burnett had the confidence of very few outside the Yankee clubhouse. But he put those fears to bed with a strong performance.

Burnett may or may not be able to replicate this performance if the Yankees advance to the ALCS, but he is the reason they even have chance to advance. His performance, and the Yankees offense, forced game 5 in the Bronx.

Ivan Nova will likely go on three days rest for the Yankees. Nova in game 5 yields much more confidence than Burnett in game 4, but without Burnett, Nova never would have had a shot to close it out.

One year after one of the most dominant pitching seasons in memory, the league again saw a great year for pitchers. That is until the postseason. Last year saw no-hitter after no-hitter, perfect games and near perfect games, and it was all capped off by Roy Halladay's Division Series no-hitter. This postseason, though, has been lacking any hint of dominant pitching.

We can't know how good game one of the Yankees/Tigers series could have been. C.C. Sabathia and Justin Verlander sounds like a pitchers duel on paper. But the game was suspended after just one inning, thus ending Sabathia and Verlander's performances until Tuesday. Yet, even in this suspended game, both pitchers had given up a run in the first inning.

Each of the four play-off series have played their first two games. None have gone extra innings. Therefore, 72 innings have been pitched in the postseason so far. 98 runs have been scored. In an environment where pitchers seem to be excelling far more often than hitters, the opposite seems true on the game's biggest stage. The combined ERA of pitchers this postseason is 12.25.

Sure, the sample size is relatively small, but the number of runs we've seen is surprising. The reason is pretty simple though. Superstar hitters are acting like superstars. Below is the list of star performances thus far:

Evan Longoria: 3/9, 1 HR, 3 RBI
Josh Hamilton: 3/7, BB
Miguel Cabrera: 3/7 3 RBI, 2 Runs
Jorge Posada: 3/7, 2 Runs
Ryan Braun: 6/10, 1 HR, 3 RBI, 2 Runs
Prince Fielder: 3/8, 1 HR, 3 RBI, 2 Runs
Justin Upton: 2/9, 1 HR, 2 RBI, 2 runs
Albert Pujols: 3/8, 1 RBI, 1 Run
Lance Berkman: 2/8, 1 HR, 3 RBI, 3 Runs
Ryan Howard: 2/7, 6 RBI, 1 Run

In the first two games of these series, the above hitters combined to go 30/80, 5 HR, 24 RBI, 15 Runs. These numbers are a far cry from what you would expect after the regular season. There's been one shut out in this postseason, but it will be interesting if these offenses can keep it up. One thing is for sure though, the league's biggest offensive stars have shined brightest this postseason.

Every now and again, there will be a change in baseball that shakes the very core of the game. Many may not consider Terry Francona's departure from the Red Sox one of these changes, but I do. This departure, whether it be mutual, forced, or otherwise, will not only affect the Red Sox from a managerial standpoint, it will affect the entire organization. Like an earthquake centered in New England, the loss of Francona will reverberate not just in Boston, but in entire baseball east. Maybe further.

Let's start with what seems obvious. Terry Francona was the best manager the Red Sox ever had. For a franchise buried beneath generations of failure, the combination of Theo Epstein and Terry Francona proved to be the savior Red Sox Nation needed. They won two World Series in the last ten years and have been competitive every year. But now comes life after Francona, and maybe life after Epstein.

Sure many will point to the reported disconnect between Francona and Epstein as reason for Epstein to celebrate the loss of his manager and continue on in peace as the Red Sox general manager. Yet, Theo, like Francona, has done just about everything he could do with Boston. He has the opportunity to be challenged elsewhere, to find success in another city buried under years of failure. Epstein may stick around Boston, but the consensus seems to be he's willing to look elsewhere.

Francona will land somewhere else. He will be allowed to start fresh, to command the respect of a clubhouse from day one rather than fight to win it back on a daily basis, and to utilize his talents as a manager in a way less scrutinized by the front office.

Yes, Francona and Epstein may move on, but will Boston? John Henry's Yankee-fighting juggernaut is being dismantled. Dirty laundry is being thrown from the windows. Rumors and truth are swirling together like a deadly elixir. The Red Sox are at a fork in the road even if Epstein sticks around. Seasons like this one tend to carry on and follow a team like an unwanted cat. One wrong signing in the offseason, the wrong managerial choice, or even a bad piece of off-field publicity could send this team from perennial competitor to a fight and scratch type club.

The potential falling of the Red Sox could open the door for Toronto and Tampa. Toronto continues to have winning seasons, but also continues to fall short of the play-offs. Tampa Bay has one of the best GM/Manager combinations in all of baseball. They continue to succeed with minimal payroll and should benefit from any hiccup in the Red Sox winning ways.

Boston, as of right now, has only lost Terry Francona. But that loss may be more than anyone could have ever guessed. It could lead to a domino-style destruction of the Red Sox to which we have grown accustomed. Tito gave the Sox everything he had. They rewarded him with respect and titles for so long. But when that faded, he and the organization had little choice but to part ways. Where both parties go from here remains anyone's guess.