Well, for those of you too young to remember this, there was a time when hitting a ball into the upper deck at Yankee Stadium was considered something of an accomplishment. On Oct. 10, 1980, the Kansas City Royals did something that some thought they might never do: beat the New York Yankees in a postseason series. And they did it, in large part, because George Brett hit a home run off Goose Gossage.

At that time, nobody in the American League threw harder than Gossage. And very few hitters in the American League swung harder than Brett, at least not when he wanted to swing hard (he didn't always). Well, on this particular occasion, Gossage threw as hard as he could, Brett swung as hard as he could, and the result was a long, long fly ball. All the way into the upper deck. To this day, older Royal fans -- and older Yankee fans, I suspect -- still remember Brett's home run as an "upper-deck shot."

But will anyone remember Mark Grace's home run as anything special? Nope. In the 21st century, it's just another homer.

Gonzalez lifted a fly ball to Shane Spencer in left field, and Spencer gunned down Womack at the plate, with Spencer and catcher Jorge Posada making fantastic plays. The kind of plays that ... let me be the hundredth baseball writer to write this tonight ... the kind of plays that the Yankees always seem to make, this time of year.

It's funny how these things just seem to happen for the Yanks, though, isn't it? Chuck Knoblauch is in left field for the Yankees virtually every game in the postseason, until these last two. Torre puts Spencer in left field, and so of course, somehow, some way, these last two games feature critical plays by Spencer in left field that Knoblauch couldn't make even in John Sterling's most fevered dreams.

And it's not like El Duque has a great move or anything, what with being a right-hander and having the high leg kick. Over the last two seasons, 36 runners tried to steal against him, and 27 of them were safe.

But in this case, there wasn't any reason to steal. Your fast guy is already in scoring position. Let Counsell hit, and there are a million good things that can happen. He might walk, giving you another baserunner. He might get a hit, which would almost chase home Womack. He might even, in the process of trying for a base hit, pull the ball to the right side of the infield (ah, fundamental baseball), which would at least get Womack to third.

But you waste an out, throw in a couple of great defensive plays, and -- voila! -- another zero in the line score.

 
           AB   HR  RBI   OBP  Slug 
Sanders   312   19   65  .331  .510 
Dellucci  191   10   36  .363  .513 

When he's healthy, Reggie Sanders is an outstanding hitter, and he's been healthy for most of this season. You're not going to platoon Reggie Sanders. But David Dellucci is a fine hitter, too.

In four games, the Diamondbacks have faced a right-handed pitcher who throws a good fastball and a great curve (Mike Mussina), a right-handed pitcher who throws a great fastball and a great splitter (Roger Clemens), and a right-handed pitcher who throws a decent fastball and a great slider (El Duque). It Seems to me that a great manager would figure out a way to get a good left-handed hitter (Dellucci) into the lineup every once in a while.

Joe: "It is obvious that Bob Brenly made the right choice, starting Curt Schilling."

Tim: "No question about it."

Yes question about it. Curt Schilling left the game after seven innings with a 3-1 lead. If he's not pitching on short rest, he remains in the game and quite likely pitches a complete-game victory. And now if there's a Game 7, Schilling will pitch on short rest again. So before we figure which choices were right and which weren't, let's wait a few more days.

The Diamondbacks somehow scored a couple of runs that inning anyway.

And if you're going to give the Yankees credit when they do everything right, then don't you have to speak up when they self-destruct? Erubiel Durazo whaled the ol' horsehide, but a great center fielder might have made the play; Bernie Williams never looked good while retreating, and he didn't make the play. Alfonso Soriano's relay throw was, quite frankly, one of the worst throws in World Series history; something like 30 feet off line. It destroyed any chance of a play at the plate and allowed Durazo to move up to third, which wound up costing the Yankees a run when Derek Jeter made a subpar throw home on a grounder.

In other words, even the Yankees aren't perfect. Of course, if you hit enough home runs you don't have to be perfect.

The first time was Game 5 of the 1911 World Series, Philadelphia Athletics against the New York Giants, in a game not completely dissimilar to Game 4 of the 2001 World Series. As they came to bat in the bottom of the ninth, the Giants trailed 3-1. They scored twice that inning, though, and once more in the 10th to beat the A's and stave off elimination (it was only temporary, as the Giants got hammered in Game 6).

The second time was Game 5 of the 1929 World Series, Athletics against the Chicago Cubs. Going into the bottom of the ninth, Cubs starter Pat Malone had a two-run lead and a two-hit shutout. But with one out, Mule Haas blasted a two-run homer over the right-field wall. And four batters later, Bing Miller crashed a double off the scoreboard to plate Al Simmons with the game-winning (and Series-clinching) run. By the way, this really added insult to injury for the Cubs. Just the day before, the A's had trailed 8-0 in the seventh but scored 10 runs in one inning to complete the biggest comeback in Series history.

Game 5 is Mussina vs. Batista.
Winner: Mussina

Game 6 is Pettitte vs. Johnson.
Winner: Johnson

Game 7 is Clemens vs. Schilling.
Winner: Clemens, thanks to an extra day of rest.

I have written, many times, that the results of one-run games are determined largely by luck. Or at the least, they're determined by luck more than most people think. A lot of you don't believe that, and that's OK. Today, I simply want to report a fact, a fact that amazes me past the point of wanting to analyze it ... from 1998 through Game 4 of the 2001 World Series, the New York Yankees have played 11 postseason games decided by one run.

They won all 11 of them.

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 30
In response to Tuesday's column, many of you pointed out something amazing, something that somehow (and inexcusably) eluded me.

As I reported, Brian Anderson became only the sixth pitcher to start a World Series game after finishing the regular season with four (or fewer) victories, a losing record, and an ERA worse than the league average. And here's the amazing part ... 24 hours after Anderson became the sixth, Orlando Hernandez will become the seventh.

And here are the updated statistics for such fellows, including Mr. Anderson: six starts, zero wins, three losses, 7.04 ERA. Not that Anderson did anything to hurt those stats. He pitched five and one-third innings, and allowed just two runs, reminding me a little of Jim Rooker in 1979 (cf. yesterday's colum). The difference is that where Rooker's team scored seven runs after he left the game, Anderson's team didn't score any runs at all after he left. Rooker's Pirates didn't have to face Mariano Rivera.

While we're on the subject of World Series starters and things that I missed, a reader named Tim Lee noticed something that, to my knowledge, nobody else has.

Everybody in the world knows that Curt Schilling has pitched brilliantly in the postseason, winning all four of his starts in impressive fashion.

One way to evaluate Schilling's performance is to look at his Game Scores. As many of you remember from past columns, Game Scores take a pitcher's line and translate it into a single number, where 50 is about average and 100 is incredible. Just to drive this home, here are a couple of pitching lines:

          IP   Hits  R  ER  BB  SO   Game Score
Great      9     0   0   0   0  13      100
Average    6     6   3   3   3   5       50

Anyway, I figured the Game Scores for each of Schilling's starts this season, regular and postseason. Then I looked at Schilling's four-start "clusters" to find the four consecutive starts in which he pitched best.

It's not even close. Schilling's best four-start cluster is the four postseason starts.

       Game Score
 9 Oct     89
14 Oct     79
19 Oct     85
27 Oct     74
          ---
   Total  327

Schilling's last four Game Scores total 327 (average Game Score: 82). During the regular season, his best four-game cluster was 296 (average Game Score: 74).

Looking at it another way, here are the combined totals for each of those four-game clusters:

                  IP   H  R  ER  BB  SO   
7/31 thru  8/15   32  26  4   4   4  40                
10/9 thru 10/27   34  16  3   3   5  38    

There's not much difference between these two lines, except for the 10 hits. And as some of you might remember from a discussion here last year, hits allowed are tied to luck more than people think. Still, think about this. Pitching against the Cardinals, the Braves, and the Yankees, Schilling has put together his best four-start stretch of the season. Granted, Atlanta's lineup really wasn't very good, but it's still a fantastic run, Schilling's best sustained performance this year.

Now, about what I missed and Tim Lee didn't ... in all the discussions about Schilling starting Game 4 on three days' rest, nobody (except Tim) seems to have noticed that Schilling may have recently benefited from extra rest. Here's the table from above, but with a bit of additional data:

                 Rest
 9 Oct     89   5 Days
14 Oct     79   4 Days
19 Oct     85   4 Days
27 Oct     74   7 Days

Now, there are a lot of reasonable explanations for Schilling's postseason brilliance. Luck. Guts. The Braves. Adrenaline. Did I mention the Braves?

But might not one explanation be that Schilling has been exceptionally well-rested? Two of his postseason starts have come after the normal four days of rest, but another came after five days and another after seven days.

Schilling's best start of the season, statistically at least, came on April 10 against the Dodgers: complete game, two hits, zero walks, 10 strikeouts. After five days' rest.

Schilling's second-best start of the season came on May 26, after four days' rest.

Schilling's third-best start of the season came on July 21 against the Giants: seven innings, one hit, two walks, 12 strikeouts. After two days' rest.

Two days' rest? Yes, but with an explanation. Schilling started in San Diego on July 18, but the game was postponed after two innings -- in which Schilling threw 27 pitches -- when electrical explosions knocked out the left-field lights at Qualcomm. So when Schilling started again on the 21st, it had been been seven days since his last real start (120 pitches).

What's come before now means very little. The Diamondbacks won the first two games? Irrelevant. All that matters now is that the Diamondbacks have to win two of the next four games. You know that Randy Johnson is going to pitch one of those games, and you now know that Curt Schilling is going start Game 4 . Schilling can pitch one game after his regular rest, or he can pitch two games on short rest (assuming of course that the Series goes to seven games).

I have little doubt that Schilling is better after four (or five, or six) days of rest than he is after three days' rest. But how much better? Nobody knows, because Curt Schilling has never started on only three days' rest.

If Schilling's an A pitcher on four days' rest and a B+ pitcher on three days' rest, well then of course you'd take the two B+ starts rather than the A start. But what if he's a B- or a C starter on three days' rest? Wouldn't you rather have one A start from Schilling, and a C start from Miguel Batista or Albie Lopez?

I'm glad Bob Brenly has to decide, and not me. If it were my team, I'd go with Batista in Game 4, and then hope that Schilling and Johnson, both of them well-rested, can win Games 5 and 6 to wrap things up. But Brenly knows his pitchers better than I do, so I'm not going to spend much time second-guessing his decision to pitch Schilling in Game 4.

SUNDAY, OCTOBER 28
A couple of notes on Game 2, while wondering if Luis Sojo set a record last night for most chins on a World Series pinch-hitter ...

Can anyone tell me why Craig Counsell was in the lineup instead of Jay Bell? I mean, I know that Counsell has been already been ordained as Unlikely Postseason Hero of 2001, but he really doesn't have any business starting against Andy Pettitte. Not when Jay Bell is available.

No, Pettitte's not as tough against left-handed hitters as Randy Johnson is. But he's plenty tough. This season, Pettitte held lefties to a 631 OPS (.284 on-base percentage; .347 slugging percentage).

Now, let's look at what the Diamondbacks' "discretionary" left-handed hitters -- the left-handed hitters who play a lot, other than Luis Gonzalez -- did over the last three regular seasons (1999-2001) against left-handed pitchers:

           OBP  Slug
Womack    .313  .338
Counsell  .314  .392
Finley    .317  .482
Grace     .381  .459

Counsell looks good, but that's only 140 at-bats, most of them this season; before 2001, Counsell's managers simply wouldn't let him play against lefties, and it's likely that those numbers above are just a fluke. Only Grace has displayed any real ability to reach base and hit with power against southpaws. And given what Grace contributes with the glove, it's hard to fault Brenly for starting him against Pettitte.

Here are the stats vs. left-handed pitchers for the four right-handed hitters who might have replaced -- and in one case did replace -- the four lefty hitters listed above:

           OBP  Slug
Spivey    .416  .585
Jay Bell  .423  .548
Bautista  .397  .515
Colbrunn  .382  .534

I cheated a little here. Junior Spivey isn't actually on the World Series roster; he got dumped so the Snakes could carry Midre Cummings. But this quartet looks like a sort of modern Murderers Row against left-handers. The lowest OBP here -- Colbrunn's .382 -- is higher than the highest OBP among the left-handed hitters. The lowest slugging percentage here -- Bautista's .515 -- is higher than the highest slugging percentage among the left-handed hitters.

Of course, everything worked out, even though the four left-handed hitters in Arizona's lineup went 0-for-16 with six strikeouts. Now, one might argue that Bob Brenly planned it exactly this way, that he didn't want to take the hit on defense that he'd get with Bell and Colbrunn in the lineup rather than Counsell and Grace.

Still, if you went to Brenly before Game 2 and said, "Bob, I'll give you a choice: you can have a couple of hits at the cost of a small bit of defense, or you can have that extra bit of defense but no hits at all," which do you think he'd pick?

I don't guess I should speak for Brenly, but I think that I would rather have the hits. It's easy to say, after the game, that Arizona didn't need any more hits, because of course the Big Unit threw a big shutout. But if you make out every lineup thinking your pitcher is going to throw a shutout, you're going to lose a lot of games. And I still think Junior Spivey should be on the roster instead of Cummings, and should be in the lineup when a lefty is pitching for the Yankees.

But while Bob Brenly didn't use much of his bench, Joe Torre has a different problem: he doesn't have much of a bench to use. In the top of the eighth inning, the Yankees mounted their first real threat of the night. Shane Spencer led off with a single, and Alfonso Soriano followed with another base hit. So for the first time, the Yankees actually had a runner on second base.

Who would pinch-hit for Andy Pettitte, in this most critical moment for the Yankees?

Luis Sojo.

Luis Sojo, who has posted a .298 on-base percentage over the course of his long career.

Luis Sojo, who has posted a .353 career slugging percentage in his career.

Luis Sojo, who compiled 79 at-bats during the 2001 season, batted .165, and appears to have spent much of his leisure time thinking about his postgame meals.

Luis Sojo, who grounded into a double play, killing the only thing that even looked like a Yankee rally all night.

As some of you might remember, I refused to make a prediction, at least in print, regarding the outcome of the World Series. So I won't even tell you that I did, in a couple of radio interviews, pick the Diamondbacks in six or seven games. What I will tell you is something I did say in print ... whoever you think is going to win, you have to admit that the Diamondbacks have a huge edge in bench strength. And when configuring his World Series roster, Joe Torre had a choice between Luis Sojo -- his good-luck charm -- and Nick Johnson, who can actually hit a little.

And it seems to me that Torre made the wrong choice.

SATURDAY, OCTOBER 27
Notes on Game 1 ...

Why, a double, of course.

I was listening to ESPN Radio's broadcast, and both Jon Miller and Joe Morgan mentioned that Womack hasn't been nearly as prolific a basestealer since coming to Arizona from Pittsburgh. So I looked it up, and they're not precisely correct about that. In 1999, his first year with the Diamondbacks, Womack actually set a career high in steals.

 
       Opp  SB  SB/Opp 
1997   209  60   0.29 
1998   213  58   0.27 
1999   210  72   0.34 
2000   181  45   0.25 
2001   149  28   0.19 

For Opportunity (Opp), I used a crude measure: singles plus doubles plus walks plus HBP. Womack played regularly for Pittsburgh in 1997 and '98, and I never liked him much because he was leading off but his OBP wasn't good. Still, I had to grudgingly admit that he wasn't a bad leadoff man, because he was such an effective basestealer. In those two seasons, Womack swiped 118 bags and was nabbed only 15 times.

And then in 1999, his first year in Arizona, he set a career high with 72 steals. Even with 13 caught stealings (also a career high), it was a good year as Womack also posted a career-high .332 OBP.

Since then, though, Womack's value has dropped off sharply, because his OBP and his steal rates have dropped off. You can see the decrease in his stolen bases above, and he's also posted identically woeful .307 on-base percentages in each of the last two seasons. What he's doing leading off for a pennant-winning club, I haven't the faintest idea.

Yes, but if the Diamondbacks blew a 9-1 lead in the World Series with their starter on the bench, it would go down as the biggest managerial blunder since John McNamara didn't replace Bill Buckner with Dave Stapleton.

If I'm managing, I might even pinch-hit for Schilling in the bottom of the fifth. I understand why Brenly stuck with Schilling for seven innings. I just don't agree with him.

Seems pretty silly now, doesn't it? With the Diamondbacks crushing the Yankees in the opener, wouldn't it seem the height of foolishness if Brenly did anything but his best to kick the Yankees when they're down?

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 25
There's very little news about the World Series, so let's discuss Bob Brenly's Game 3 surprise: Brian Anderson, 4-9 with a 5.20 ERA during the regular season, will start against the Bronx Bombers. So if things go according to plan -- Miguel Batista doesn't get used up as a reliever in the first three games, and the Diamondbacks aren't down 2-1 after three games -- here's who will start for Arizona in the World Series, Games 1 through 7:

Schilling (R)
Johnson (L)


Anderson (L)
Batista (R)
Schilling (R)


Johnson (L)
???

It's virtually impossible to divine a likely Game 7 starter. If Anderson pitches well in Game 3, then of course he'd probably draw the assignment (along with the chance to become one of the unlikelier pitching heroes in Series history). If Anderson does not pitch well in Game 3, then it would have to be Albie Lopez, who could strengthen his position with a solid relief outing earlier in the Series.

But if it's so important to pitch lefties in Yankee Stadium, then why not order the starters like this?

Schilling (R)
Batista (R)


Johnson (L)
Anderson (L)
Schilling (R)


Batista (R)
Johnson (L)

It's generally accepted that Batista is Arizona's third-best starter right now, so why not put him in position to start two games rather than just one? And with this setup, the Diamondbacks start two lefties at Yankee Stadium rather than just one, with the righty Batista making both his starts in Phoenix.

It just seems to me that if you were playing this World Series on a computer, my scheme would win the Series more often than Bob Brenly's would.

But of course, they're not playing the World Series on a computer. Maybe Brenly thinks that Johnson wouldn't pitch well in Yankee Stadium. Or perhaps he figures that if Schilling loses Game 1, the Diamondbacks simply have to throw their best pitcher at the Yankees in Game 2, because you're sunk if you go to New York already down by two games (which you are). What's more, if you schedule Johnson for Game 7 and there's not a Game 7 because the Yankees have already won, then Brenly looks really, really stupid for not getting his best pitcher two starts.

But if Brenly really wanted to get sneaky -- not to mention hated by everyone wearing the pinstripes -- he could start Johnson in Game 2, but switch to Batista after one hitter, and start Johnson again in Game 3. The Pirates tried something like this 11 years ago, in Game 6 of the National League Championship Series. Right-hander Ted Power started for Pittsburgh, so Lou Piniella sent his left-handed lineup out. Power pitched well for two innings, but was nevertheless replaced by Zane Smith, a left-hander. And suddenly Piniella didn't have his best lineup out there (the Reds won anyway, 2-1).

The Washington Senators tried the same thing in Game 7 of the 1924 World Series. Right-hander Curly Ogden started against the New York Giants, but after two batters he was replaced by a lefty, George Mogridge. The Senators eventually won the game in 12 innings, so you'd have to say the move worked.

Now, let's say Randy Johnson starts Game 2. Shane Spencer and Randy Velarde will probably be in the lineup; Paul O'Neill and David Justice probably won't be. Of course, if Batista replaces Johnson, then Joe Torre would probably replace Spencer and Velarde with O'Neill and Justice. But now it's the second or third inning, and the Yankees are playing by National League rules with virtually no bench (unless you count Luis Sojo and Clay Bellinger). Meanwhile, the Diamondbacks still have Greg Colbrunn and Erubiel Durazo and Jay Bell and David Dellucci still waiting for a chance to pinch-hit.

Of course, Brenly almost certainly wouldn't try something so strange, if only because it's considered a bit underhanded among baseball men. Still, it's kind of fun to think about.

A lot of people think that starting Anderson in Game 3 is plenty strange enough. Personally, I think we have to trust Brenly to know who's got the better chance of pitching well. He's got a choice between Batista and Anderson and Lopez, and if you look at everything, rather than just their 2001 stats, there's no obvious choice. And Anderson has pitched well lately, allowing seven hits and two runs in seven postseason innings.

This is the space where I'm supposed to make a prediction, but this year I think I'll pass. Two things to consider, though ...

Personally, my gut feeling is that the Yankees will beat the Diamondbacks. But whether that's the result of logical analysis, or simply of watching the Yanks destroy everybody for three years running, I haven't the faintest idea.

Programming Notes: I won't have a column tomorrow, but I will be hosting a chat at 1 p.m. Eastern. And Sunday morning I'll be back with a column about Game 1.

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 24
A few readers tell me of reports indicating that Barry Bonds tied Babe Ruth for the single-season OPS "record" this year. OPS, of course, is on-base percentage plus slugging percentage, and it seems to pop up everywhere these days. Maybe I was the first national columnist to regularly mention OPS, but then again maybe I wasn't. It really doesn't matter to me who popularized OPS; I'm just glad that it's popular, because it tells us a lot more than batting average does.

And OPS tells us, better than anything else does, that Barry Bonds just put together one of the great seasons in baseball history. But did he really tie Ruth? All those plate appearances, and a tie?

Here are the top two single-season marks for four percentage statistics (and yes, I know that OPS isn't technically a percentage):

   Batting            
1. Tip O'Neill, 1887    .485
2. Pete Browning, 1887  .457

A 28-point difference; not even close. If you're wondering about those averages, I don't blame you. In 1887, walks counted as hits, and so the top three single-season batting averages of all time were posted in 1887 (Parisian Bob Caruthers is No. 3, with a .456 average).

   Slugging
1. Barry Bonds, 2001    .863
2. Babe Ruth, 1920      .847

Among Bonds' more impressive accomplishments is this one. He not only broke Ruth's record, but he broke it with a triple and a homer to spare.

   OBP
1. Ted Williams, 1941   .551
2. John McGraw, 1899    .547

This one's pretty close. If you don't like 19th-century players, Ruth's next on the list with a .545 on-base percentage in 1923.

And then we've got OPS, which of course isn't an official statistic but is significant to me, and to many of you. Oddly enough, some reports have Bonds "tying" Ruth for the single-season "record" in this category, but when you heard that, didn't you think, "Huh?" Because if you assume that both Bonds and Ruth topped 600 plate appearances (they did), aren't the odds highly against an exact tie?

Sure they are, and Bonds did not tie Ruth.

   OPS
1. Babe Ruth, 1920     13791
2. Barry Bonds, 2001   13785

Yes, if we round to four digits, as we normally would, they are tied at 1379. But when figuring out a leader, we take the number as far as we have to, right? In 1931, Chick Hafey and Bill Terry both batted .349, but Hafey won the National League batting title because his .349 was actually .3489, while Terry's .349 was actually .3486 (Jim Bottomley was right behind, at .3482).

So Ruth remains the single-season OPS champ ... but only due to a technicality. You see, Ruth benefits from a change in the scoring rules.

According to Major League Baseball's official definition of on-base percentage, sacrifice flies are at-bats; they count against your OBP just like a strikeout or a pop to the shortstop or whatever. Well, Bonds had two sacrifice flies in 2001. Take those away -- that is, do not consider them when figuring OBP, just as sacrifice bunts are not considered when figuring OBP -- and Bonds would have a .517 OBP and a 1380 OPS.

And Ruth? Officially, he did not have any sacrifice flies, because they were not an official statistic in 1920. Then, sac flies were lumped together with sacrifice bunts in a single category called Sacrifice Hits. Ruth did hit at least two sacrifice flies (according to Retrosheet's data), but those sacrifice flies were not, are not, and will never be official. So Ruth's 13791 OPS isn't going anywhere, and Bonds is still No. 2 on the list.

And now, from the Department of Stick to Your Chosen Field, two examples of poor analysis by the supposed experts themselves ...

At the conclusion of the season, someone asked Dodgers right fielder Shawn Green who might be most likely to next break the home-run record. Green's reply, which appeared right here on ESPN.com, went like this: "The person doing it would have to be on a team like the Giants, with a solid lineup behind him. The man had (Jeff) Kent hitting behind him, you couldn't pitch around him."

Is Green really so out of touch, that he hasn't any idea that Barry Bonds was probably pitched around as much as any player in history? That Barry Bonds set a major-league record with 177 walks, and that 35 of those walks were intentional?

Shawn Green is just one player, of course. But what does it say about National League players in general, that they would elect Curt Schilling rather than Randy Johnson as the Pitcher of the Year (as designated by The Sporting News). Granted, I don't have any idea how many National Leaguers actually voted, nor do I know how serious they took this task.

What I do know is that Randy Johnson, compared to Curt Schilling,

And Schilling? He won one more game than Johnson.

If you want to know which pitcher has the best fastball, or which second baseman looks the best when turning the turning the double play, or which hitter gets the most distance on his batting-practice homers, then by all means ask the players. But if you want to know which pitcher or second baseman or hitter is simply the best?

Shoot, you might be better off asking a baseball writer.

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 23
It would, I suspect, be hard to find two pitchers who are a closer statistical match over the last four seasons than Aaron Sele and Andy Pettitte.

           Innings   W-L    ERA
Sele         844    69-35  4.27
Pettitte     813    64-41  4.32

It's funny. Last night, with Sele struggling and Pettitte cruising, Tim McCarver made much of Sele's weaknesses, and just as much of Pettitte's strengths. But is there any reason to think that Pettitte is the better pitcher?

During the regular season, no. But if they look alike from April through September -- in the stats, at least -- there's very little resemblance between them once the regular season ends and the postseason begins. Here's the same period, but with postseason stats instead:

           Innings   W-L    ERA
Sele          36     0-6   4.46
Pettitte      90     7-2   3.01

Pettitte hasn't quite been invincible in the postseason; he did get cuffed around a couple of times. But he's generally been very, very good. Meanwhile, Sele hasn't been bad, exactly. But neither has he been good. Sele has started seven postseason games since 1998, and only once -- last year's Game 3 start against the White Sox in the Division Series -- has he pitched something like a gem (one run in seven-plus innings).

This is, of course, just among the many reasons that the Yankees never lose in October. Andy Pettitte pitches better than Aaron Sele, Mariano Rivera pitches better than everybody, Derek Jeter turns into a human highlight reel. They're the New York Yankees, and they're one of the two or three greatest teams that ever played the game.

All that said ... I've been reading the New York columnists lately, and so I can predict with some degree of certainty that they'll tell their readers, many times over the next few days, that not only are the Yankees the best team in the American League, but that they are quite obviously the best team in the American League. How do we know this? Why, because the Yankees fought off a very good Oakland club, and then trounced what most people considered a great Seattle club.

The Mariners won 116 games during the regular season, 21 more than the Yankees won. The Mariners played a tougher schedule than the Yankees played. And when the Mariners played the Yankees in the regular season, they won six of the nine games.

Here are two teams -- we'll call them Team O and Team M -- along with their one- and three-year records:

         One-Year    Three-Year
Team O    109-53       308-178     
Team M    100-62       256-230

For the one season, Team O won nine more games than Team M. Over the three-year period with the aforementioned season in the middle, Team O won 52 more games than Team M.

So knowing what you know about Team O and Team M, which would you say was the better team? But what if I told you that in an important five-game series, Team M managed to beat Team O four times? Would that change your mind?

Well, it doesn't change my mind; I still think that the 1969 Orioles were better than the 1969 Mets.

Here are two more teams -- we'll call them Team I and Team G -- along with their one- and three-year records:

         One-Year   Three-Year
Team I    111-43      296-166
Team G     97-57      247-215

For the one season, Team I won 14 more games than Team G. Over the three-year period with the aforementioned season in the middle, Team I won 49 more games than Team G.

So knowing what you know about Team I and Team G, which would you say was the better team? But what if I told you that in an important four-game series, Team G managed to beat Team I four times? Would that change your mind?

Well, it doesn't change my mind; I still think that the 1954 Indians were better than the 1954 Giants.

Does all this mean the Yankees aren't as good as the Mariners? Nope, that's not what I'm saying at all. The Yankees are, after all, the defending world champs. And the possibility certainly exists that the Mariners simply played over their heads all season, and next season the Yankees will win just as many games as the Mariners. What I'm saying is that five games simply isn't enough to tell us, with any great degree of accuracy, which team is better. All we really know is that the Yankees played better than the Mariners over the course of these five games.

I know that some of you, and perhaps all of you in New York, will consider my analysis the product of sour grapes. It's not. Sure, I'm tired of seeing the same old Yankees in the World Series again, just like practically everyone else in the country is tired of seeing the same old Yankees in the World Series again. (Do you know any non-Yankees fan who's happy about it?)

See, I don't consider it an insult, to suggest that a successful team isn't necessarily the best team.

In 1985 I did not believe, nor do I believe now, that the Kansas City Royals were the best team in baseball, even though they won the World Series. But did I let that detract from my enjoyment of their success? No, I did not.

In 1988 I did not believe, nor do I believe now, that the Kansas Jayhawks were the best team in college basketball, even though they won the NCAA championship. But did I let that detract from my enjoyment of their success? No, I did not.

The 2001 Yankees might be the best team in the American League, but then again they might not be. And if I were a Yankees fan, I wouldn't care much one way or the other.

MONDAY, OCTOBER 22
You don't have to trust me, but I promise you that I wrote the below Saturday night, on the eve of Game 4 of the American League Championship Series ...

Here in Seattle and elsewhere, Paul Abbott's home/road stats this season have routinely been quoted. But it goes further than that. Abbott has been significantly better at home for two years running now. So I won't even bother with the 2001 stats; here are his combined numbers for the last two seasons:

       IP   H   BB    ERA
Home  161  123  73   3.18 
Road  181  186  94   5.18

Yes, I know that it's not a huge number of innings we're talking about. And I also know that Safeco Field is a great pitcher's park. But two full runs of ERA seems like something worth noticing. And interestingly enough, this weekend the New York sportswriters have managed to turn Lou Piniella into a stats geek, as they discovered that he looks at the history of batter/pitcher matchups.

The two arguments against Joel Pineiro are good ones. First, he's young. So perhaps a critical game in Yankee Stadium isn't the best place for his postseason debut. And second, he hasn't started a game since September 8, and he hasn't pitched at all since October 6. There's nothing that can be done about the first of those, and the second is obviously Piniella's fault. You've got a guy with a 2.05 ERA, and you can't find even a single inning of work for him in the postseason? Seems to me like a strange way to run your pitching staff. But at this moment, it would probably be foolish to throw Pineiro into the fray, 2.05 ERA be damned.

So after thinking about it Saturday night, I concluded that Abbott was Piniella's best option given the existing conditions. I just don't understand why Piniella left himself in that position. As it turned out, of course, Abbott pitched well enough last night, and so for at least a few hours, we analytical types in the Pacific Northwest forgot all about Joel Pineiro and his 2.05 ERA.

But while I didn't agree, and still don't agree, with Piniella's machinations regarding Pineiro, I loved the game plan his hitters brought to Game 4. When asked about his team's approach against Clemens before the game, Piniella responded, "Probably to stay a little patient. We know he has had -- what is it, the hamstring? -- and make him throw as many pitches as possible. I think that would be a good game plan. Now, you don't want to fall consistently behind, obviously. But if we can get him to throw a lot of pitches early, I think it would benefit us."

A good game plan, and Piniella's got the hitters to make it work. After two innings, the Mariners hadn't yet collected a base hit ... but they'd drawn two walks and, perhaps more important, they'd forced Clemens to throw 39 pitches. After three innings, it was four walks and 61 pitches. After four innings, it was four walks and 76 pitches. For Paul Abbott, meanwhile, it was six walks and 71 pitches. As David Schoenfield noted, "I think this is the worst best pitching duel I've ever seen," as the two clubs had combined for just one hit (Olerud's single).

During the second inning Tim McCarver said, "The pitch count with Clemens isn't nearly as important as it is with most pitchers," but I think he's absolutely wrong, at least right now. Clemens hasn't pitched seven full innings since early September; he's obviously not as durable these days as he's been in the past. In his last three starts, Clemens has thrown 96, 82, and 90 pitches.

And if Clemens has somewhere between 80 and 100 pitches in him, aren't you better off making him throw those pitches in five or six innings rather than seven or eight? Because as we all know, if you don't get into the Yankee bullpen until the seventh or eighth, you're quite probably going to lose.

Sure enough, when the fifth inning began, Ramiro Mendoza was getting warmed up. When the sixth inning began, Clemens was sitting on the bench and watching Mendoza pitch to Bret Boone. And it seemed that the pitch count with Clemens was important after all.

Abbott didn't make it to the sixth, either. But even though he walked eight Yankees, you have to admit that he justified Piniella's faith, because Abbott didn't allow a single hit. Or a single run. And as much as I like Joel Pineiro, even I have to admit that he probably wouldn't have done quite that well.

One of the things that I find both amusing and frustrating about postseason baseball is the media coverage, as we (the fans) are told that everything is two or three times more important than it actually is. When the Mariners lost a couple of close games to open the series, well of course it was because they simply couldn't take the pressure of playing against the invulnerable Yankees. And further, they certainly didn't have any chance to come back, not after being demoralized like that.

And then, when the Mariners somehow shook off their malaise and scored 14 runs in Game 3, it was if a switch had been flipped, and the Mariners who led the majors in run production were back.

Except baseball doesn't work like that, friends. I believe that Earl Weaver might be the smartest baseball man who ever lived, and it was Earl Weaver who said, "Momentum is tomorrow's starting pitcher." Joe Torre repeated the line after losing Game 3.

No, it wasn't Big Mo that beat the Mariners last night. It was just Mo. The moment that Bernie Williams hit that baseball a few rows into the right-field seats, tying the game in the bottom of the eighth, one couldn't help but think that Mo Rivera would shut down the M's for as long as it took. That's just what he did ... and it only took him three pitches.

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 18
Yes, the New York Yankees play great fundamental baseball, and thus rarely beat themselves. They make the great majority of the plays they're supposed to make, and they also make a fair number of the plays that they're not supposed to make.

But the Mariners didn't lose Game 1 of the 2001 American League Championship Series because they didn't execute as well as the Yankees did. They lost because Aaron Sele didn't throw nearly as many quality pitches as Andy Pettitte did.

It's funny, though; until I actually sat down to write this column, I was just certain that the Yankees had "out-fundamentaled" the Mariners. After all, didn't David Bell fail to make a play on Knoblauch's hot smash in the top of the second? And further, didn't Bell follow that with an ill-advised throw home, allowing two runners to move up an extra base apiece? And didn't Carlos Guillen somehow fail to tag Jorge Posada at second base in the top of the fourth, thus wasting a laser-like throw from the great Ichiro? And didn't the Yankees score an insurance run in the ninth after Alfonso Soriano stole second base despite a pitch-out?

The answer to all of those questions is "Yes." In fact, of the Yankees' four runs, two of them were assisted by Mariner misplays, and another could have been prevented by a great defensive play. Only Paul O'Neill's homer in the fourth was unequivocal.

All that said, the Yankees made some mistakes, too. In the bottom of the first, Brett Boone shot a liner to Scott Brosius at third base. Brosius dropped the ball ... but he still had plenty of time to throw out Boone at first base, and probably would have had time even if Boone had not given up on the play. In the fifth, Knoblauch didn't get a good jump when a liner came off Mike Cameron's bat, nor did he get a good jump when that liner reached the fence in left field. The result was a double, giving the Mariners runners on second and third with nobody out.

Oh, and remember that insurance run the Yankees got, after Soriano stole second base? Well, he shouldn't have had to steal second base. Soriano led off the ninth with a liner off the scoreboard in left field. But instead of running hard out of the batter's box, he jogged down the line while watching what he must have assumed was a home run.

And in the bottom of the ninth, after Ichiro's one-out double, Mariano Rivera threw not one, but two wild pitches -- both of them were catchable, or at least it looked that way from my seat in the upper deck -- and Ichiro scored. Those two extra bases were irrelevant given the score, of course, but my point is that even great teams make mistakes. Games are sometimes decided by execution, or lack thereof, on the bases and in the field. But more often they're decided by execution on the mound and at the plate, and yesterday the Yankees were better in both places.

Which reminds me, what the hell is wrong with Seattle's hitters? They averaged 5.7 runs per game in the regular season, and now they've averaged exactly three runs per game in the postseason. And yes, I know that the Mariners are facing better pitching now, but they wouldn't have won 116 games without beating up some good pitchers, too. Of the top 10 American League ERA qualifiers, two were Mariners (Garcia and Moyer). The other eight were Mike Mussina, Joe Mays, Mark Buehrle, Tim Hudson, Mark Mulder, Barry Zito, Roger Clemens, and Cory Lidle.

The Mariners faced those eight pitchers 21 times (14 of those games were against the four Athletics in the group). And in those 21 games against some of the best pitchers in the American League, the Mariners went 12-9 and averaged 4.8 runs per game. Roger Clemens, everyone's favorite Cy Young candidate, started against Seattle twice, and the Mariners scored 13 runs in those two games. They beat Tim Hudson three times, and they beat Mark Mulder three times. On April 26, the Mariners beat Mike Mussina, touching him for five runs on their way to a 7-3 victory.

So don't tell me that they're helpless against good and great pitchers, because they are not. Or at least they were not for six months. It's certainly possible that the Mariners are simply finding their true levels, that they're not really as good as they looked during the regular season.

If that's true, the M's are in trouble. What's more, it seems that Lou Piniella is determined to let Joe Torre out-manage him. While Torre is a master of the bullpen once the postseason rolls around, Piniella is still managing as if it were June. With the Mariners trailing by two runs in the top of the eighth inning yesterday, Piniella went to the bullpen for ... Jose Paniagua, who would be a fine addition to Kansas City's or Texas' bullpen, but doesn't have any business on a postseason roster. Predictably, Paniagua gave up a run; he's now pitched three times in the postseason, and has allowed at least one run each time. This made a difficult task -- coming back against the Yankee bullpen -- even more difficult.

Every manager has his weaknesses, and these tend to become more pronounced in the postseason. Among Piniella's weaknesses is a strange obsession with Jose Paniagua, when he's got better options available.

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 17
If there's anyone out there who still thinks that Randy Johnson is a postseason choker, let history remember that if Matt Williams could have jumped a little higher or squeezed a little tighter on Tuesday, Johnson would quite possibly have thrown the second no-hitter in postseason history.

But as I said yesterday, it's too bad that more fans couldn't watch it on TV. And it's also a bit disturbing that Bank One Ballpark contained so many empty seats -- many thousands of them -- for a postseason game featuring two of the greatest baseball pitchers who ever lived. Remember when Phoenix and Florida were supposed to be the great unexplored baseball markets?

Now, a few thoughts on the Mariners and Yankees...

Here's Jamie Moyer's 2001 line against the Cleveland Indians, who scored more runs during the regular season than every team but Moyer's Mariners:

 
Games IP  Hits  BB  SO    ERA  W-L 
  4   26   15    4  21   1.04  4-0 

That's impressive, friends.

Oh, and did anybody else notice how similar Games 2 and 5 of that Division Series were?

In Game 2, Moyer (the winner) pitched six innings, gave up one run, and was relieved by Jeff Nelson, who was relieved by Arthur Rhodes, who was relieved by Kazuhiro Sasaki (the saver).

In Game 5, Moyer (the winner) pitched six innings, gave up one run, and was relieved by Jeff Nelson, who was relieved by Arthur Rhodes, who was relieved by Kazuhiro Sasaki (the saver).

In Game 2, Chuck Finley (the loser) pitched 4 1/3 innings, and was relieved by David Riske, who was relieved by Paul Shuey, who was relieved by Danys Baez.

In Game 5, Chuck Finley (the loser) pitched 4 1/3 innings, and was relieved by David Riske, who was relieved by Ricardo Rincon, who was relieved by Danys Baez.

Strange but true.

Speaking of Finley, he did take the loss Monday but it could have been a lot worse. Finley left trailing 2-1, and it's certainly not his fault that the Indians could manage only one run against Moyer and his helpers. You talk about "gutsy" performances ... Finley essentially took the mound with nothing, and may have set some sort of record for most 58-foot breaking balls in one outing. He waited 15 years for another shot at the postseason and I wish he could have won a game. But if he doesn't get another chance, at least he'll always know that he did his job in the most important start of his career.

Reader Chris Grosso writes in with:

How much is the Yankees' dynasty due to Mariano Rivera? I'd argue a huge piece of it. Since 1998, Mariano has saved 20 games, while all other postseason relievers are 22 for 35 in save opportunities. If Mariano blew seven saves, as the average closer would have done, and we assume the Yanks lost five extra games, their postseason record would go from 33-8 to 28-13 -- and they quite likely would have lost a series or two.

Moreover, there's the psychological impact. With Mariano as closer and because Yankee manager Joe Torre is willing to use him for two innings, he can bring his setup men into the game an inning earlier. That aggressiveness has won a lot of games for the Yanks and is a huge advantage because it changes the way opposing managers manage. And, can we assume that at least some of the success of the Yankee setup men is due to the fact that opposing batters are pressing, knowing that if they don't score now they won't get much of a chance later, against Rivera?

I don't know about the psychological impact, but the statistical impact is clear.

Since 1998, Rivera has recorded 167 saves in the regular season. Only four of them -- 3.1 percent -- were gained with two innings (or more) of work; "long saves," I call them.

Over that same span, Rivera has recorded 13 saves in the postseason, and six of them were long saves. This includes his last two, a pair of two-inning saves against the Athletics.

So not only is Rivera brilliant in the postseason, but he's brilliant for longer. And yes, this essentially "shortens" the game for the Yankees, as they need only five or six good innings from their starter. Then it's Stanton and/or Mendoza before Mo turns out the lights. A great deal of credit goes to Joe Torre for his willingness to run his bullpen a bit differently, and more effectively, during the postseason.

And you know, when Rivera's name comes up in Hall of Fame discussions, a dozen or 15 years from now, his postseason stats should be front and center. Because without Mariano Rivera, there isn't any dynasty.

Who's going to win the ALCS? Playing against tougher competition this season, the Mariners won 21 more games than the Yankees did, so they certainly deserve to be considered favorites. However, there are so many question marks that it's pretty tough to handicap this one.

The Yankees won their Division Series because they made more plays than the Athletics did. The Mariners won their Division Series because Jamie Moyer (and the bullpen) twice pitched brilliantly. Well, the Mariners are just as capable of making plays as are the Yankees, but on the other hand it looks like Jamie Moyer will only pitch once unless the series goes seven games.

So here's my prediction... If Clemens and Hernandez can, between them, come through with two starts of at least seven innings, then the Yankees win. But if those two aren't reasonably healthy/effective, then the Mariners win.

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 16
Greg Maddux and Randy Johnson. I ain't much for absolutes, but I hereby pronounce, with the authority vested in me, that if you're reading this and you're not excited at the prospect of Greg Maddux and Randy Johnson pitching against each other in October, well then by gosh there's probably something wrong with you, to the extent that I would advise a complete neurological workup.

Tuesday Game 1 matchup got me to wondering how many pitching matchups like this have occurred in the postseason. Mind you, I'm not talking about Waite Hoyt vs. Jesse Haines in Game 7 of the 1926 World Series; those guys were both fine pitchers, but they're also both marginal Hall of Famers. Rather, I'm talking about duels between pitchers who might be considered among the 20 or 25 greatest pitchers ever. In the 1970s, it's Tom Seaver, Steve Carlton, and Jim Palmer. In the 1980s, it's ... well, the pickings are slim in the 1980s. And in the 1990s, it's Roger Clemens, Greg Maddux and Randy Johnson.

With this in mind, I identified 19 pitchers who (1) might be described as the best of their generation, and (2) pitched in at least one postseason series. All of the pitchers would be familiar to you, I think, with the possible exception of Ed Walsh. But he's irrelevant anyway, as he never pitched against his greatest colleagues -- Cy Young, Christy Mathewson, Three Finger Brown, and Walter Johnson -- in the World Series.

I'll get to the point. Prior to this year, I count only eight games pitting top-tier Hall of Fame pitchers against each other. And in the majority of those games, Whitey Ford was one of the pitchers. Most obviously, Ford and Warren Spahn matched up once in the 1957 World Series (Game 1) and three times in the '58 Series. Ford beat Spahn in 1957 with a complete-game five-hitter, but Spahn's Braves beat Ford's Yankees in the Series, thanks largely to Lew Burdette's three victories (two of them shutouts). Spahn beat Ford twice in 1958, and in the other game Ford got knocked out in the second inning. But the Yankees got their revenge with a Game 7 win against Burdette.

Four years later, Ford and Juan Marichal battled in Game 4 of the 1962 World Series, but neither got a decision. Ford was lifted for a pinch-hitter after allowing two runs in six innings, while Marichal tossed four shutout innings but had to retire from the contest after injuring his hand while batting in the top of the fifth.

In 1963, once again it was Whitey Ford, this time pitted against Sandy Koufax in Games 1 and 4. Ford pitched poorly in the opener while Koufax was striking out 15 Yankees on his way to a complete-game victory. Ford pitched better in Game 4 -- two hits and one earned run in seven innings -- but it wasn't quite good enough to beat Koufax, who pitched another complete game to beat the Yanks 2-1, clinching a Series sweep for the Dodgers.

That '63 World Series marked, in a sense, a changing of the guard. It would be another 14 years before the dynastic Yankees would win another World Series, and Sandy Koufax cemented his standing as the game's greatest pitcher, replacing Ford (or if you prefer, Warren Spahn).

Three years later, it was Koufax again, this time against Baltimore's Jim Palmer in Game 2 of the 1966 World Series. Palmer pitched a four-hit shutout to beat the Dodgers, and the Orioles wound up sweeping the Dodgers to conclude Koufax's last season.

And that's it. Palmer didn't face Seaver in the '69 Series, nor did Palmer start against Carlton in the '83 Series, nor did Clemens duel Maddux in the 1999 World Series. Yes, friends, it's been 35 years -- Branch Rickey was just recently dead, and Rob Neyer just recently alive -- since a true Battle of the Immortals in October. But today we'll have another one, and it's something of a shame that most of you will be at work when it happens.

MONDAY, OCTOBER 15
A few notes on the weekend's action while I wonder if Bud Selig is going to prohibit all baseball-related hugging for the duration of the current hostilities...

In Game 5 of the 1985 National League Championship Series, Ozzie stepped to the plate with one out in the bottom of the ninth inning, the score tied at two apiece and Dodger closer Tom Niedenfuer, a right-hander, on the mound.

Ozzie was a switch-hitter, and by that point in his career he'd racked up 2,975 at-bats against right-handed pitchers ... and he hadn't hit even a single home run in those 2,975 at-bats. But of course, that's exactly what he did against Niedenfuer. On a 1-and-2 pitch, Ozzie hit a line drive down the right-field line and it cleared the fence with room to spare for a game-winning homer. If it wasn't the most unlikely home run in history, it might well have been the most unlikely home run in postseason history.

Counsell's feat, while certainly unlikely, isn't anything like what Ozzie did. Counsell's a lefty-hitting role player, so he has rarely been allowed to play against southpaws, at least until this year (when he batted .337 -- albeit with no homers -- in 101 at-bats). So, entering the postseason, Counsell had gone merely 221 regular-season at-bats against lefties without hitting a home run.

As it happened, neither Spencer nor Velarde played even a tiny role in New York's 1-0 victory Saturday night. Not that you can blame them. Spencer and Velarde combined for one hit (Spencer's double), which was exactly how many hits the rest of the lineup combined for. Fortunately, that one hit was Jorge Posada's home run.

Actually, Spencer did get an assist on the game's most exciting play, though I'm not sure if he's particularly proud of himself for air-mailing his throw past, not one, but two cutoff men. Fortunately, Derek Jeter was cutoff man No. 3, and he made the damndest play you'd ever want to see, especially if you're an Athletics fan.

Which reminds me, I still haven't heard a decent explanation for why Jeter was in position to make the play that he did. Elsewhere, my friend Neal Traven writes:

There were already two cutoff men positioned to be overthrown by Spencer (Soriano and Martinez). Is Jeter supposed to be a third cutoff man, placed no more than 40 feet from home plate? I've never heard of such an approach. If that's his role, then who is covering second base on this probable double? What if the throw goes to second? Is Brosius there? If that's the case, then who's at third base to keep the batter from continuing over to there?

All fine questions in this scribe's opinion. What Jeter said was, simply, "That's my job on a ball in the corner." It's hard for me to believe that it was really that simple, though. Who was covering second base?

Anyway, New York Daily News columnist Filip Bondy wrote the next day, "For those who would still dare insist that Jeter is no Alex Rodriguez, there is now a single play at the plate that will argue the point forever."

That's truly silly. One great play doesn't make Derek Jeter a greater player than Alex Rodriguez any more than one great play made Ron Swoboda a greater player than Roberto Clemente. That said, what Jeter did Saturday ranks among the greatest defensive plays in the history of game, due to the mental and physical difficulty of it and its importance. I certainly won't ever forget it.

However, we saw something else that concerned me, from Seattle's perspective, entering the series. I obviously didn't think it would hurt the Mariners much, else I wouldn't have predicted a sweep for them. But why on earth were Joel Pineiro and Ryan Franklin left off the postseason roster in favor of Jose Paniagua and John Halama? Here's what those four pitchers did in the regular season (and I'll keep things real simple):

 
           IP  H+BB    ERA 
Pineiro    75    71   2.03 
Franklin   78   100   3.56 


Paniagua   66    97   4.36 
Halama    110   158   4.73 

Yes, it's the latter two who made the postseason roster, rather than the former two. And both Paniagua and Halama pitched in Saturday's game; Halama did well, Paniagua not so well.

Obviously, the last two men in your bullpen generally don't make much difference in a postseason series, and Paniagua certainly didn't lose it for the M's on Saturday, considering that they lost by 15 runs. But Seattle's strange use of roster spots could get them in trouble if a starter gets knocked out early and their hitters are able to return the favor to the other club. The Mariners have a great bullpen in the seventh inning and later, but they're not so hot in the fourth through sixth.

And of course, that was short. From 1995 through 2000, no postseason saw more than one Division Series reach five games; this year we've got three of them. And no, it doesn't mean anything. We're just lucky this year.

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 11
Early in Wednesday night's game between the Yankees and Athletics, broadcaster Joe Buck wondered about the presence in the lineup of Chuck Knoblauch, Paul O'Neill, and David Justice. Buck referred to Knoblauch's "lost season," and O'Neill and Justice both bat left-handed and have recently suffered from injuries.

See, A's starter Mark Mulder throws the baseball with his left hand, and he's pretty darn tough on left-handed hitters; this year he's limited them to a .281 on-base percentage and a .338 slugging percentage. And here's how the aforementioned three Yankees fared this year against lefties (few of them as tough as Mulder):

vs. LHP     AB   OBP  Slug
O'Neill    127  .338  .394
Justice    112  .274  .420
Knoblauch   99  .362  .414

Joe Buck is right; this has been a lost season for Knoblauch, a left fielder who sports an overall OPS below 700. But he does get on base at a decent rate against lefties, and anyway somebody has to lead off, right?

But in left field? Knoblauch's a lousy left fielder; doesn't track batted balls with any sort of precision and can't throw. So if he's going to play he should be the DH, with O'Neill held in reserve for pinch-hitting duties, since he apparently can't run well enough to play right field.

And in left field? I never played the game, but can anyone tell me why Shane Spencer wasn't in the lineup last night? This season Spencer slugged .563 against left-handed pitchers. OK, so that's only 64 at-bats. You want a bigger sample? From 1998 through 2000, Spencer slugged .616 against lefties in 203 at-bats. This guy was born to start against left-handed pitchers, and you're going to write

Justice

Here's the best Yankee lineup against A's left-handers Mulder and Barry Zito, given the 25-man roster as currently composed:

DH Knoblauch
SS Jeter
CF Williams
LF Spencer
 C Posada
3B Brosius
1B Martinez
RF Justice
2B Soriano

So my cleanup hitter is on Joe Torre's bench. Loyalty and experience are great, but sometimes you're better off with your best players in the lineup.

Other games yesterday ...

Bottom of the fifth, Astros have runners on first and third with one out. With the pitcher due next, Chris Truby popped out of the dugout to pinch hit. Showing great restraint, he took three balls. Well, four. Except that the fourth ball, a fastball three or four inches off the plate, was called a strike by plate umpire Chuck Meriwether.

You see that call every day, because umpires seem to expand their strike zone a bit when the count is three balls and no strikes. But this time it really cost the Astros. Because after watching what should have been ball four, Truby swung at, and missed, two more pitches that also should have been ball four. So he struck out. And then Craig Biggio, whose postseason woes remain woeful (.120 in 50 at-bats), hit the ball hard but right at the second baseman, and once again the Astros were stymied. And they're done, folks. Roy Oswalt's a great little pitcher, but even if healthy he's not good enough to win three games.

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 10
It will forever be forgotten because of the final score, but in yesterday's contest between Seattle and Cleveland, Mariners "shortstop" Mark McLemore made a spectacular defensive play on a pop to short left-center field by Juan Gonzalez.

The second-inning gem seems even more spectacular when you remember that before this season, McLemore had played the grand total of 14 games at shortstop in the major leagues, none of them since 1990: six games (and only nine innings) in 1987, and eight games (all as the starter) in 1990. On the other hand, this season McLemore, at the moderately ripe age of 36, did start 30 games at shortstop, and to this reporter's eyes he didn't look bad doing it.

And with Carlos Guillen laid low with tuberculosis and the only other option being rookie Ramon Vazquez, McLemore is now the Mariners' everyday shortstop in the postseason.

This is not a common thing. By my count, McLemore is only the sixth player in history to serve as his club's starting shortstop in the postseason after playing 35 or fewer games at the position during the regular season.

In 1917, Buck Weaver spent the majority of the season at third base, playing only 10 games at shortstop. But Weaver came up as a shortstop and had been the White Sox's regular at the position until midway through the 1916 season. On August 10, Weaver broke the index finger on his left hand, and Fred McMullin took over at third base. When Weaver was ready to play six weeks later, instead of taking over for McMullin he replaced shortstop Swede Risberg, who was struggling badly at the plate. And with McMullin at third base and Weaver at shortstop, the White Sox topped the New York Giants in the World Series.

On August 16, 1920, a fastball thrown by Yankees submarine pitcher Carl Mays caught Indians shortstop Ray Chapman flush on the left temple. Chapman soon lapsed into a coma, and he died at 4:40 the next morning.

Chapman was an excellent player, perhaps the American League's best shortstop, and the Indians were locked in a tight pennant race with the White Sox and Yankees. The Indians were forced to replace Chapman with rookie Harry Lunte, but nobody thought that Lunte could hit at all, and his defense wasn't anything special, either. Still, Lunte was all the Indians had, and so he took over at shortstop ... until September 6, when he pulled a muscle in his left thigh. That left the Indians with one option: 21-year-old Joe Sewell, then playing for New Orleans and just a few months removed from college.

So the Indians summoned Sewell, who debuted on September 10. He played 22 games down the stretch and batted .329 as the Indians captured the American League pennant, and then beat the Dodgers in the World Series. That was just the beginning for Sewell, who eventually became known as the toughest man in baseball history to strike out, and was elected to the Hall of Fame.

It would be many, many years -- 41 years, to be precise -- before a shortstop would again enter the postseason having played 35 or fewer games at the position in the regular season. But there's a caveat. Tony Kubek was the Yankee shortstop in the '62 Series after playing there only 35 times during the regular season. But he was far from a novice, having served as the club's starting shortstop for most of the previous four years. Kubek didn't play much before the World Series only because he spent most of the season in the U.S. Army.

And then in 1968, the most famous defensive switch in baseball history. During most of the season, the Detroit Tigers used three shortstops: Ray Oyler (111 games), Tom Matchick (55 games) and Dick Tracewski (51 games). All three of them were, shall we say, offensively challenged. Matchick batted .203, slugged .286 ... and he was the slugger among the group. Tracewski batted .156, and Oyler batted .135! Yes, it was The Year of the Pitcher, and Tigers manager Mayo Smith could have lived with those guys playing shortstop in the World Series. But he had another problem: how to get future Hall of Famer Al Kaline into the lineup?

The Tigers opened the season with Willie Horton in left field, defensive wiz Mickey Stanley in center, Kaline in right, and Jim Northrup filling in where needed. In May, Kaline got his arm broken by a pitched ball, and was out of the lineup for a month. Northrup took over in right field, and when Kaline saw only spot duty after coming off the disabled list. Kaline heated up down the stretch, though, and manager Smith wanted to get him into the lineup on a regular basis. Smith's solution was risky, but it worked. Kaline moved back to his old spot in right field, Northrup shifted to center field ... and Mickey Stanley became, for the first time in his professional career, a shortstop.

There are a couple of common misconceptions about the move. One, a lot of people think that it was done to get Oyler and the others out of the lineup, but the real goal was to get Kaline in. And two, it's often forgotten that Stanley did play nine games at shortstop in late September, so he wasn't completely raw when the Tigers met the Cardinals in the World Series.

What people do remember correctly is that the move worked. Stanley made two errors but neither of them cost the Tigers, Kaline batted .379 with eight RBI, and the Tigers won the Series in seven games. (On the other hand, Stanley batted just .214 with no RBI, leading one to wonder if the Tigers would have done just as well with one of the real shortstops in the lineup.)

Four years later, the Tigers were involved in another shortstop switch, though this time they didn't have a choice in the matter. Tigers shortstop Eddie Brinkman ranks as one of the worst-hitting long-time regulars ever, but his defense was so impressive that after the season the Detroit baseball writers named him "Tiger of the Year" in something of a landslide.

The Tigers won the American League East title, but Brinkman played only one game against the A's in the ALCS before a sore back knocked him out. For the rest of the series, which the Tigers lost, second baseman Dick McAuliffe shifted to shortstop and Tony Taylor took over at second base. Shortstop was nothing new for McAuliffe, who had been Detroit's starter for a few years in the 1960s, and had occasionally played the position since.

And now, nearly 30 years later, McLemore.

About yesterday's games...

There's not a whole lot to say about the Indians and the Mariners. Considering the situation and the competition, Bartolo Colon pitched his best game of the year. And so you have to, as they say, tip your cap to him.

And as well as Colon pitched, Curt Schilling was even better, and there wasn't much that Tony La Russa could have done about it. I don't know that Miguel Cairo would have been my choice to pinch-hit in the top of the eighth -- I might have gone with Craig Paquette, who had a better chance of tying the game with a bomb -- but it's very unlikely that anybody on La Russa's bench could have made a difference.

And that brings us to the Braves and the Astros, where we find at least three managerial decisions that will be roundly second-guessed, in Houston if not elsewhere.

Top of the eighth, Houston leads Atlanta by a run. Wade Miller has pitched well, but he'd been lifted for a pinch-hitter in the seventh, so the Astros needed a new pitcher. Larry Dierker's options included the following pitchers (relief stats only):

 
               IP  Hits  BB   ERA 
Octavio Dotel  84   55   33  1.93 
Mike Williams  64   60   35  3.80 
Nelson Cruz    82   72   24  4.15 
Mike Jackson   69   68   22  4.70 

These guys are all right-handed relievers, and I listed them by ERA in ascending order.

Dierker started at the bottom of the list, summoning his worst right-handed reliever (Jackson) rather than his best (Dotel), or somebody in between (Williams and Cruz). Jackson struck out a batter but also gave up a couple of hits that resulted in a game-tying run. Shortstop Julio Lugo booted a double-play ball -- and by the way, why was he still in the game? -- leaving two runners on base with Chipper Jones due up.

Now Dierker called for his best relief pitcher, Billy Wagner, and I don't know that he was wrong. However, the AP story says that Dierker replaced "the righty Jackson with lefty Wagner, forcing Jones to hit right-handed, his weaker side; only eight of his 38 homers came that way."

Well, that's just not right. While it's true that Chipper hit only eight homers right-handed this season, it's also true that he batted right-handed only 109 times this season. He actually slugged substantially higher against left-handed pitchers this year, .679 as opposed to .587 against righties. He was better against lefties last year, too. And the year before that. You have to go all the way back to 1998 to find a season in which Jones did not perform better against lefties than righties.

Perhaps more in Dierker's mind was the fact that in eight career at-bats against Wagner, Chipper was hitless with six strikeouts. Wagner's the man, and you can't blame Dierker for using him.

No, the question that Astro fans will always remember is, Where's Dotel?

And to this point at least, Larry Dierker hasn't supplied an answer.

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 9
Because it's among the things I get paid for, a quartet of predictions covering the next six days....

Mariners vs. Indians
So what do you expect me to say? The Indians just might win a game, but then again they might not. The Mariners have three starting pitchers who rank among the American League's top 11 in ERA, while the Indians ... well, the Indians have two starting pitchers who rank in the top 26. Let's look at where the starting pitchers for each game stand in the ERA list:

         M's  Tribe
Game 1    1     20
Game 2    6     36
Game 3   11     26
Game 4    1     20
Game 5    6     36  

Do we really need to continue here? And yes, I do know that the Mariners play in a pitcher's park while the Indians play in a hitter's park ... but the Mariners outscored the Indians anyway, by 30 runs. Seattle's hitting is better, and their pitching is significantly better.

Prediction: Mariners in three.

Yankees vs. Athletics
A year ago, the Yankees and A's met in a Division Series, and the A's outscored the Yankees in the five games, 23-19. But the Yankees scored six runs in the first inning of the fifth game, and advanced.

Since then, the A's have gotten better. A lot better. And as near as I can tell, the Yankees haven't. Sure, adding Mike Mussina made them better in April, but that was when we figured Orlando Hernandez would be the best No. 4 starter on the planet. Instead, he went 4-7 with a 4.85 ERA, and nobody really knows what he'll bring to the mound this month.

I would like the Yankees' chances better if the series was scheduled for seven days. But it's scheduled for six days, which means that No. 4 starters will probably come into play. And while the Athletics can turn to Corey Lidle, who went 13-6 with a 3.59 ERA this season, the Yankees will have to choose between the gimpy Orlando Hernandez and the ineffective Sterling Hitchcock. Or Clemens on three days rest.

Prediction: Athletics in five.

Astros vs. Braves
My heart says that Craig Biggio and Jeff Bagwell are finally going to enjoy themselves in the postseason, and lead the Astros to their greatest glory.

My head says that the Atlanta lineup, impotent as it's been this season, will score enough runs against a questionable Astro rotation that's been utterly destroyed by injuries, some of them self-inflicted and some not.

Put it all together, and I don't have the foggiest idea what's going to happen. But like I said, they pay me to make predictions, so here is one ...

Prediction: Braves in four.

Diamondbacks vs. Cardinals
It's fashionable, of course, to say that the Diamondbacks have the edge in a short series because their two best starting pitchers are so good. Which they are. So good. But while it's true that Randy Johnson and Curt Schilling rank one and two in ERA in the National League, it's also true that Darryl Kile and Matt Morris rank five and six. What's more, Kile (3.09) and Morris (3.16) have pitched virtually as well as Schilling (2.98) has. And yet, if the series goes five games, it's Schilling rather than Johnson who will start twice.

In my mind, the key to this one isn't whether Johnson and Schilling pitch well, because we have to assume that they will. No, the key questions are:

Will Albie Lopez pitch like he did in his last two starts (17 innings, 15 strikeouts, six hits allowed), or will he pitch like he did the rest of the season (8-19, 5.20 ERA)?

and

Will Miguel Batista pitch like he did this season (6-6, 3.36 ERA in 18 starts), or will he pitch like he did the rest of his career (10-18, 4.82 ERA in 45 starts)?

Prediction: Cardinals in five.

MONDAY, OCTOBER 8
Most of the work that goes into building a team is done before the season, but general managers spend a huge amount of time trying to improve their clubs during the season, too. So today, on the eve of the playofs, I thought it might be fun to look at some of the in-season moves that made or broke postseason chances. I'm only going to discuss the teams that wound up earning postseason berths or were supposed to have a chance either before or during the season. Thus, no mentioning the Royals, who made some bad moves but wouldn't have been anywhere near first place even if they'd picked up Barry Bonds instead of Brent Mayne.

First, the postseason contestants and what got them where they're going ...

Seattle Mariners, 116-46
The M's didn't make any important deals during the season. Pat Gillick did his work before the season, when he acquired Ichiro Suzuki, Bret Boone and Jeff Nelson. I do think that Gillick should have dealt Brett Tomko for a right-handed bat before September, but at this moment it's hard to find fault with anything related to the Mariners.

Oakland Athletics, 102-60
July 26: A's traded three prospects to the Rockies, who sent Neifi Perez to the Royals, who sent Jermaine Dye to the A's. Dye joined the Athletics on July 25, at which point Oakland sported a 54-46 record. From that moment through the end of the season, Dye slugged .547, drove in 59 runs and, more to the point, Oakland amazingly went 48-14 to run away with the wild card.

New York Yankees, 95-65
None. Last year, the Yankees made a number of moves during the season, and nearly all of them worked beautifully. This year, the Yankees made a number of moves during the season, and virtually none of them worked particularly well. Mark Wohlers and Jay Witasick were acquired to bolster the bullpen, and combined for a 4.62 ERA. Sterling Hitchcock was acquired to stabilize the rotation, and went 4-4 with a 6.49 ERA in nine starts. The Yankees picked up Gerald Williams and signed him to a contract for 2002 ... and he batted .170 in just 47 at-bats. The Yankees traded for Randy Velarde on September 1, and he batted .152 in 46 at-bats. There have been rumors suggesting that George Steinbrenner is less than completely satisfied with GM Brian Cashman, and Cashman's failure to strengthen the roster during the summer certainly isn't a point in his favor.

Houston Astros, 93-69
May 15: Signed third baseman Vinny Castilla, who had been waived by Tampa Bay. Is Castilla a great player? No, he's not. There were 10 third baseman in the National League who played better than Castilla, and I suspect that the Astros could have done just as well with Chris Truby or Morgan Ensberg. All that said, Castilla did stabilize the position, and left Gerry Hunsicker free to worry about other things

St. Louis Cardinals, 93-69
August 3: Traded Ray Lankford for Woody Williams. The single best move of the year. Williams went 7-1 with a 2.28 ERA after joining the Cardinals, and it's quite likely that they wouldn't be in the postseason without him.

Arizona Diamondbacks, 92-70
None. The Diamondbacks traded for Albie Lopez on July 26, but Lopez didn't pitch well for his new club until recently, and even with two straight victories he's just 4-7 with Arizona.

Cleveland Indians, 91-71
None. The Indians didn't make any midseason moves that helped, and the one big move they did make -- trading Steve Karsay and Steve Reed for John Rocker -- blew up in their faces. The Indians do get credit for giving a slot in the rotation to the unproven C.C. Sabathia, who in many years would be everyone's favorite Rookie of the Year candidate. I was skeptical about Sabathia's ability to pitch effectively and healthfully, but though he took his lumps, he also won 17 games and never missed his turn in the rotation.

Atlanta Braves, 88-74
August 17: John Smoltz earns his first save. Including that game, since August 17 Smoltz has saved 10 games and posted a 2.08 ERA. Unfortunately for the Braves, this stands as one of the few moves this season that worked out for them. Rico Brogna didn't last the season. Karsay and Reed have been effective but not spectacularly so (though one could certainly argue that getting rid of Rocker was the primary goal of that deal). And most obviously, John Schuerholz never really addressed the Braves' glaring need for a potent bat in the lineup.

And now, the bad moves made by clubs that fell short in their runs to postseason glory....

New York Mets, 82-80
None. The Mets did make a good move when they traded Rick Reed for Matt Lawton, finally bringing some punch to the outfield, but of course it was far too late. The Mets had zero offense in the outfield when the season started, and one can't help but wonder why GM Steve Phillips didn't see this from the beginning.

Chicago White Sox, 83-79
None. The Sox got off to a horrible start and never really got back in the race despite a good second half. They actually made a couple of good moves: Signed "outfielder" Jose Canseco on June 21. OK, so Canseco's no superstar. But the Sox got him cheap -- he'd been playing in the independent Atlantic League -- and Canseco replaced some of the pop the lineup lost when Frank Thomas went down. Realistically, though, the White Sox were out of the race after a horrible start, and they were smart to dump James Baldwin in late July.

Boston Red Sox, 82-79
None. Which is probably just as well, considering the deals that Dan Duquette made in 2000 to "strengthen" the Sox for their pennant run. Then again, perhaps special mention should go to Duquette's superiors, who rewarded him with a two-year contract extension in June. Great work if you can get it, don't you think?

Chicago Cubs, 88-74
June 30: Recalled outfielder Corey Patterson from Iowa of the Pacific Coast League (AAA). Patterson spent a month in the majors, got sent back to Iowa, and was then recalled for good on August 20. Patterson wound up with approximately 140 plate appearances, and posted a 602 OPS (.266 OBP, .336 slugging). Those 140 plate appearances certainly didn't break the Cubs, but they certainly could have gone to someone a bit more productive ... say, Roosevelt Brown, who spent the great majority of the season either in Iowa or warming the bench in Chicago, but could have given the Cubs some of the power that they sorely lacked until the arrival of Fred McGriff.

San Francisco Giants, 90-72
The Giants made a couple of moves that worked out nicely: Andres Galaragga slugged .513 after joining the Giants on July 25, and Jason Schmidt went 7-1 after joining the Giants a week later. But one didn't work out. With Eric Davis struggling badly, the Giants traded for John Vander Wal (in the same deal that got them Schmidt), who posted a career-best .563 slugging percentage with the Pirates last year, and was slugging .473 for the Pirates this season. After joining the Giants, however, Vander Wal slugged just .374 with three homers and 20 RBI in 49 games.

Philadelphia Phillies, 86-76
July 27: Acquired relief pitchers Dennis Cook and Turk Wendell from the Mets, in exchange for Bruce Chen and a prospect. Both Wendell and Cook were horrible, combining for zero wins, two losses, and a 6.75 ERA in just 25 innings. They didn't lose the East title, but they certainly didn't win it, either.

Los Angeles Dodgers, 86-76
July 27: Acquired Baldwin from the White Sox in exchange for three minor leaguers. Just as the Diamondbacks traded for an American League pitcher (Albie Lopez) who pitched well in 2000 but struggled badly in 2001, so did the Dodgers. And Baldwin was even less effective than Lopez, going 3-6 with a 4.60 ERA ... and now the Dodgers, who won only three of Baldwin's 11 starts, are interesting in signing Baldwin to a three-year contract for somewhere in the vicinity of $7 million per season.

Minnesota Twins, 85-77
July 30: Lawton for Reed. At this moment, this one stands as the worst deal of the season. When the Twins dealt Lawton, they were 60-45, just a half-game behind the first-place Indians. After the deal, Reed went 4-6 with a 5.19 ERA for the Twins, who went 25-32 down the stretch and finished six games behind Cleveland.

Department of Corrections
In this space last week, I wrote the following:

And finally, let me leave you, in my last column of the regular season, with a bit of hilarity courtesy of New York Daily News columnist Vic Ziegel:

Another pitcher it's tough to argue about is Roger Clemens, who's 20-2 and would be 32-0 if the Yankees got him a few more runs.

I write stupid things every day, as my editor, not to mention many of you, will be only too happy to confirm. But this just might qualify as the single most asinine thing that's been written about baseball so far in the 21st century. This season in the American League, 36 pitchers have thrown enough innings to qualify for the ERA title. Two of them (Paul Abbott and Aaron Sele) have received more support than the 6.56 runs per nine innings that Roger Clemens has been blessed with. And 33 have not.

Well, I messed up, because Vic Ziegel was just joking around. I'm not going to say that it was a good joke, because many of his readers didn't get it. But I'm assured by a number of people, including one of Ziegel's copy editors, that Ziegel's tongue was planted firmly in his cheek. So Vic, if you're reading this, you've got my apologies. And I owe you one, pal.

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 5
With apologies to fans of the Giants and the Phillies, it's quite likely that we're not going to see any surprises regarding the postseason derby this weekend. I believe that pennant races are the best that baseball has to offer, but that doesn't mean that there aren't still plenty of reasons to watch this weekend.

1. Bonds
Needing little further introduction, I suppose. As much as "Will Barry Bonds hit 71 homers?" the big question might be "Will the Dodgers throw Barry Bonds any strikes?" We might think yes, because the Dodgers really aren't playing for anything any more. Well, except their pride. And so we might think no, because, for many decades now, the Dodgers and Giants have enjoyed poking fingers in each others' eyes.

2. Mariners
Last night they racked up Victory No. 114, thus tying the 1998 Yankees for the American League record. One more and they set a new record, and if they can sweep the Rangers they'll set the major-league record for victories, topping the 116 posted by the 1906 Cubs. And if the Mariners do win 117 games, they'll also set a new American League record for winning percentage, and 117-45 works out to .722, just a tad better than what the Indians did in 1954 (111-43, .721).

2a. Jamie Moyer
As related in this space a few days ago, Moyer's got a chance to become, with a victory tonight, the oldest pitcher (38) to win 20 games in a season for the first time.

3. Percentages, Percentages, Percentages
There was a time, a time not so many years ago, when the height of hitting accomplishment was something called "the batting title." This referred to the player with the greatest number of hits per at-bats, and this season the leaders in this category are Ichiro Suzuki in the American League and Larry Walker in the National League. And unfortunately for those of us who follow batting races, both Ichiro and Walker have come close to locking up their "batting titles."

Here's the American League "race":

 
             AB  Hits   Avg 
Ichiro      684   240  .351  
Ja. Giambi  515   176  .342 

Both of these guys are already locked into the postseason, so both will likely be rested at least once this weekend, which makes a reversal even less likely than otherwise. But even if Ichiro were to go 0-for-8 the rest of the way, he'd still be at .347. To catch him, Giambi would have to go 6-for-8, which is a tall order if only because he's unlikely to even get eight more at-bats.

In the National League, Larry Walker's got a 15-point lead over Todd Helton (.351-.336). This will mark Walker's third "batting title" in four years, and the fourth in four years for a Rockie, as Helton won it last season. More interesting, perhaps, is the race for the best batting average by someone who does not play half his games at Coors Field. Moises Alou is currently third in the National League at .335, but Albert Pujols is just three points behind.

Of course, batting average is the least important of the three percentages. There aren't any battles to be had with the others, though. In the American League, Giambi owns a commanding lead in both OBP and slugging, and in the National League ... well, if you don't know that Barry Bonds is making a mockery of the competition there, then today you must be reading for the first time. That's not to say that Bonds doesn't bring us a bit of drama, in addition to the home runs.

Currently sporting an .848 slugging percentage, he's got a real chance to break Babe Ruth's single-season record (.847 in 1920; Bonds is easily going to shatter the National League record).

And with a .512 on-base percentage, Bonds is almost certainly going to become the first major leaguer to reach base in half his plate appearances since Ted Williams posted a .526 OBP in 1957 (Mickey Mantle also surpassed .500 that year).

4. The Outhouse
With the postseason berths virtually locked up, we may turn our attention to the negative side of the standings. At this moment, the Tampa Bay Devil Rays and the Pittsburgh Pirates can avoid reaching 100 losses only by winning their final three games. In the American League Central, the Royals can avoid last place only by sweeping the fourth-place Tigers.

On a more positive note, the Twins and the White Sox face off this weekend in a battle for second place. If the Twins win two (or three), the prize is theirs. If the White Sox sweep, they finish second. And if the Sox take two of three, there's a tie (anyone for a one-game playoff?).

Speaking of Sox, if the Red Sox -- they of the $110 million payroll -- don't take two of three from the Orioles this weekend in Baltimore, they'll finish below .500.

And finally, let me leave you, in my last column of the regular season, with a bit of hilarity, courtesy of The New York Daily News and columnist Vic Ziegel:

Another pitcher it's tough to argue about is Roger Clemens, who's 20-2 and would be 32-0 if the Yankees got him a few more runs.

I write stupid things every day, as my editor, not to mention many of you, will be only too happy to confirm. But this just might qualify as the single most asinine thing that's been written about baseball so far in the 21st century. This season in the American League, 36 pitchers have thrown enough innings to qualify for the ERA title. Two of them (Paul Abbott and Aaron Sele) have received more support than the 6.56 runs per nine innings that Roger Clemens has been blessed with. And 33 have not.

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 4
Figures and flippancies while wondering why some MVP voters seem to think that how often a candidate reaches base and hits the ball hard is little more important than how often his teammates do the same.

Get all that? Home Runs = Walks. For many years, Ruth held both records. And now it's likely that Barry Bonds will hold both records, and that he'll have set them in the same season. Walks not bad. Walks good.