EVIL~! alkeiper

Rickey still had decent speed towards the end, didn't he? He still has decent speed NOW. But very few people are Rickey Henderson. I think a Tim Raines, Tony Gwynn is more of the model to look at here. Of course, he could always be the next Julio Franco. You never know. But very few hitters last beyond 40.

I'd be very surprised if Ichiro lasts until he is 45. He relies on speed, which will hurt him when he gets older and starts to lose it. But he could easily last til 40.

Ichiro started in the Japanese league at the age of 18. If you combine his numbers in Japan and MLB, he has 2,198 career hits. Obviously Japan isn't on the same level as MLB, but it is interesting nonetheless.

I've got the A's/Angels game. The A's had a sloppy second inning and gave up four runs. The A's have absolutely NO confidence in Mulder right now, as Joe Blanton is now pitching in the third. Hopefully the A's can come back.

Houston leads Colorado 3-1 in the third.

Remember when Bryant was booed lustily at the Philly All-Star game, and everyone criticized the fans? Turns out we were just ahead of the curve.

The AAA team perhaps?

Bowe-Holyfield IV. At least Hogan-Warrior had some backstory. Bowe-Holyfield IV would be a shameless money grab at best. The only real money fight for Bowe would be a fight against Lennox Lewis, but I doubt that's happening. Larry Donald looked awful, btw. He was only there to look for a soft spot on the canvus.

Just a quick note about the column. I'm probably going to do it a couple days late, to give me proper time to do the postseason awards. I may do a separate column to preview the playoffs.

I honestly don't think a club has EVER had a top three as good as Rolen, Edmonds, and Pujols. Its incredible.

They didn't give up much of value to get him though. Plexiglass Principle. A team that improves drastically one season will usually regress the next. See Angels 2003 and Marlins 2004. Shut up. It doesn't make a difference in the results, but it damn sure means a lot when you are making personnel decisions. Stop flooding every thread with the same god-damned opinions we've discussed ad nauseum too many times.

There is no reason. Some teams get cold at the wrong time. It happens to the best of teams. Look at the Yankees in 2000. You really can't explain it. It's not a lack of effort, as I'm sure the Cubs don't enjoy looking bad.

On that note, I started a new game chatter thread. Please post discussion regarding tonight's games in that thread. You may continue to talk about the Braves/Cubs game in this thread, if you wish.

Sorry for not starting this sooner. Big game is obviously Anaheim @ Oakland tonight at 10 ET.

Phillips hit 24 home runs in Columbus. He's actually pretty good.

I'm sorry, but 88 games is not exactly sucking. Did they come up short and fail to win crucial games at the end of the season? Certainly. But they are a better than average team. They overachieved last year, and analysts over-estimated their chances. Same thing happened in 1984, '89 and '98. They don't need to blow up the team, honestly. Just make a few prudent moves here or there, and they are in good shape.

They don't. Their record is slightly better than last season's, and their pythagorean record is significantly better.

And the Yankees have played 73 games against the AL East as opposed to 32 vs the Central. So the point is......... That the Yankees won a greater percentage of their games they played versus the East, compared to those in the Central. Is that hard to comprehend? Alright smartass. Keep trying that 73 and 32 games comparison. Damn the drugs I must have been on when I said I had respect for your baseball knowledge..................... The Central has a smaller sample size, I get it. That doesn't change the fact that the Central, a MUCH weaker division as far as Yankee fans are concerned, gave the Yankees every bit as much of a challenge as the East did. But if you like bigger samples, the Yankees finished 48-25 against the AL East (.658), and 52-34 (.605) against the rest of baseball. That still makes the AL East look weaker than the rest of their competiton.

And the Yankees have played 73 games against the AL East as opposed to 32 vs the Central. So the point is......... That the Yankees won a greater percentage of their games they played versus the East, compared to those in the Central. Is that hard to comprehend?

While I'm looking over statistics, the Yankees had a better record against the East (.657) than the big, bad Central (.625). Remove the Red Sox, and the Yankees played .741 ball against the rest of the East.

And a difference of four teams in the playoffs. The numerator is much more influential than the denominator. As for the second point, what do you call the Arizona Cardinals?

Just for fun, I took the pythagorean records of the AL East opponents, and AL Central opponents. AL East (w/o Yankees): .489 AL Central (w/o Twins): .475 Over a 162 game season, that works out to 2 wins. And that includes the Red Sox and Royals. Is the Yankees schedule really more difficult?

Oh look it's Mr. player-worship, never-do-wrong, stupid-announcers-they-should-sit-back-and-be-homers trying to lecture me again. 12 teams out of 32 make it in the NFL=37.5% 8 out of 30 make it in baseball=26.67% Slight advantage to baseball, but not by a hell of a lot. I'd say a 10% difference is a HELL of an advantage.

I'm sure the Yankees didn't mind playing the Orioles, Blue Jays, and Devil Rays 19 times apiece. The combined winning percentage of the Yankees' division rivals (INCLUDING the Red Sox) was .482. Does that demean the Yankees' accomplishments?

Yes, because they lost their two best hitters. And of course they took the Indians seriously. They did beat the Yankees 22-0 if I recall. Has anyone ever given a flying fuck about NFL division winners? Look, the playoffs in MLB haven't been entirely watered down as they have in the other major sports. Making the playoffs is an accomplishment itself, and the fans of the teams want to celebrate, they are more than entitled to it.