This video is a wake-up call and a resource to share with young people we know – gay and straight – and with each other.
Ladies and gents, I present the undefeated, number one ranked Oregon Ducks.
This is the first #1 ranking in the history of the program. The word is that Boise State will be #1 when the first BCS standings are released tonight. That’s appropriate, given the strength of BSU’s schedule thus far. Oregon has a much tougher road from here on out, however, and if both teams are undefeated at the end of the season Oregon will likely have the #1 position. The Nebraska and Ohio State defeats help both teams by making it less likely that either will get jumped in the standings, although BSU really has more to worry about than Oregon on this point.
Big time NCAA sports are truly a loathsome institution. Nevertheless, I can’t help but feel enormous pride at how far the Oregon program has come. Such are the contradictions… Go Ducks!
…and this is why they pay me the big bucks! I could handle an OU-UO championship game…
While I try to figure out why TBS was showing a replay of Game 5 of the 1977 ALCS tonight, I thought this quote might be relevant:
Tony, when you get into the playoffs this year [sic], tone down the aggressive baserunning a little bit. Aggressive baserunning does not work against a good team…
The White Sox lost five runners in the four games; the Orioles lost one. Of the five runners they lost, four were in scoring position before being cut down.
And if you keep talking about your baserunning being the edge in the playoffs, Tony, that’s going to keep happening to you. It doesn’t always happen, but it happens more often than it ought. It happened to the 1976-78 Royals. The Royals were a better team than those Yankee teams, but they couldn’t beat them because they kept farting away baserunners going first to third on infield outs. And you look on back through history — the Brooklyn Dodgers against Casey’s Yankees, Ty Cobb’s Tigers against the 1907-8 Cubs — and you’ll find that teams that live by the extra base, die by the extra base.
–Bill James, 1984 Baseball Abstract
One remaining question: Yankees in 4, or Yankees in 5? I’m undecided — Lee might be able to squeak out a game, but probably not.
…I agree that bringing in Oliver to face two switch hitters who are better against lefties was the worst part of Washington’s imitation of Herzog ’77.
You know the Yankees are a great team when they can have the greatest
pitcher athlete in Yankee known human history pitching long relief!
…well, my praise of the Ranger bullpen certainly was prescient.
Ah, the time of year when even George W Bush can be unequivocally right about something for 10 days or so…
YANKEES v. RANGERS. While I always think that the Twins have even less chance against the Yankees than the (fairly lopsided) paper matchup would suggest, I think the Rangers have a slightly better one. They figure to be a tougher match in several respects: they have some real power, they can hit lefties, and in the postseason I’d rather have high risk/high upside/bat missing pitchers like Wilson and Lewis than Minnesota’s endless parade of pitch-to-contact mediocrities. They aren’t likely to get deep into games against the Bombers, but the Rangers have a quietly brilliant bullpen. They’re live dogs.
That doesn’t mean I’m picking them. The Yankees offense is substantially better even before you consider that Hamilton probably isn’t anywhere near 100%. The Yankees rotation may have gone from underrated to overrated in a week — all the Minnesota series proves is that Hughes and Pettite can shut down hitters with unimpressive-to-no power who swing at everything — but that’s not a huge edge for Texas either, and as well as Feliz has pitched he ain’t Rivera. The Rangers not having their rotation set up isn’t the biggest deal in the world, but it doesn’t help. The path to Rangers victory: get up 2-1, force the Yanks to choose between throwing everyone on short rest and pitching Burnett, and get to the best pitcher in baseball at home on full rest in Game 7. Could that happen? Sure. Is it the most likely outcome? I don’t think so. I think not having a healthy Hamilton will be descisive. YANKEES IN SIX.
PHILS v. GIANTS You could make a case that the series isn’t as lopsided as it appears — comparing the OPS+ of the lineups comes out 4-3-1, and while the Phillies have a better (and exceptional) rotation, 1)it’s not radically better, and 2)the Giants have a better bullpen. The problem with that case is that you shouldn’t focus excessively on this year’s stats — Huff has had a better year but Howard is a better player. The key to the series for the Giants: whether the two lefties can expose the Phils’ relative weakness against lefty pitching. I don’t think it will be enough, but I do think this matchup is a little closer than it appears. PHILLIES IN 6.
This could potentially have been a sitcom-worthy awkward situation. Tom Ricks and Hugh Shelton’s memoirs:
First, he reports, a bit mysteriously, that late in the Clinton administration, the president’s authorization codes to use nuclear weapons strike were lost. He doesn’t really explain what happened or who knew about it, except that the guy who was supposed to make sure once a month that an aide to the president had the codes kept getting the runaround, and putting up with it. It turned out that an aide to the president had misplaced the codes, and had no idea where they were. The situation only came to light when it was time to collect the old codes and replace them with new ones, and the aide apparently confessed. Shelton tells the story a bit oddly — I had to read this section a few times. I am guessing that the story is about the nuclear “football” that a military aide carries. It made me wonder what happened to that aide. Also, what would have happened if the president had decided to launch a nuclear strike? (392-393)
What happens to you after you lose the nuclear launch codes? I appreciate that a President doesn’t need them often, but they seem like the sort of thing that’s really, really important to have on hand.
[cross-posted at Duck of Minerva]
And yet, because the horrible question was at least about an important policy question, the moderation in this debate might have been above-average by our current standards.
The first argument against it is Pierce’s slippery slope argument. I don’t really buy it. First, because it has the potential problem with all slippery slope arguments: if Selig (God forbid) wanted NBA style playoffs, he can have them whether or not an extra game is added. More importantly — and this is the key to the pro-extra wildcard case — I think a playoff game for the wildcard is more consistent with the pre-wildcard format, because it gives a strong advantage to the division winner. So I think it’s traction on the slippery slope if anything.
An interesting argument, made by George in comments, is that a play in game gives an additional advantage to champions of weak divisions. A real drawback, for sure. But I don’t think it’s that big a deal, either. Obviously, if baseball was always configured the way the AL is this year — in which the Twins might have finished fifth in the AL East — this would be problem to really worry about. But then you have this year’s NL, where the Colorado and San Diego were teams of essentially similar quality to the wildcard Braves. My bottom line, I guess, is that as soon as you have more than one team per league get in and want pennant races (and I think that Posnanski is right that pennant races are more exciting than anything but the World Series), you’re going to get some mild inequities. This was one of the cases for the wild card — why should the ’93 Giants go home when they were probably the second-best team in baseball? My answer then was, and still is — because they lost. If you don’t win your division, I don’t think you have anything to complain about. Preserving the pennant races is, to me, more important than ensuring that the third-best rather than the fourth-best team makes it into the playoffs. The best team never has anything to worry about.
So I can understand why people don’t want to disadvantage teams like this year’s Yankees, no worse that the second-best team in the league. But the system also has a real downside — September games that should have been thrilling were a dreary farce, and rationally so because in winning the division the Rays “won” an appointment with a better team, with home field advantage that was so meaningful that the home team went 0-5 in the series. Nuts to that. The way I see it, if you finish second, you should feel lucky that you even have the opportunity of a play-in game, and if your division is tougher, too bad. Win it and you don’t have to worry. Given that any playoff system entails inequities, preserving the pennant race is the most important thing.