Baseball 2026

Once again, spring is here - it was here for real for a couple days this week, though it's back under freezing again. Does 2026 have another snowstorm lurking? probably - but who cares? it's baseball season. I am looking forward to it - the Crimson Hose being a fascinating squad once more. Last year in general was pretty entertaining. Can they keep it going? Here then are my not very well informed guesses as to what happens this year. 

AL East:

1. Boston Red Sox - honestly, I don't know if I believe it; I am putting them here because I want them to win,a nd want to be able to crow if they do. In fact, I think they are good enough - but I think the Jays and Yankees are as good as last year, and more than capable of taking it. Thee sox should be good - they have a very solid looking rotation, and bunches of extra arms; they have a decent lineup, and a ocuple guys who could really step up. They have Roman Anthony who has all the makings of a genuine stud. Somethign about him feels like the second coming of Yaz - that's a good thing to have.

2. NY Yankees - I don't like it, but they were good enough last year, for all their troubles, and they'll have Cole back - I think all three fo these teams are going to the post-season, but the Yanks might be the best regular season team.

3. Toronto Blue Jays - an inning or so short of a World Series title and - they're close to the same. Again - all three should be post season bound, and they have been there before - they feel like the favorites to come out fo the American League over all. 

4. Baltimore Orioles - they picked up Pete Alonso, they have their young core, who were not as great last year as expected, but can still play. I would not be surprised if they were better than this - good enough for the last wild card spot? could well be. Though it is not a certainty.

5. Tampa Bay Rays - they are the Rays, they are back in the Trop, which is sure to be a boost, if only because any visitors view it with dread. I don't think they are likely to challenge for the post season, but it isn't impossible.

AL Central:

1. Detroit Tigers - they kept most of the team together. They looked like world beaters for a while last year, then dropped off the plant, then saved it at the bell, and played all right in the playoffs. I think they will be around this year, won't drop like that, and might have an easier time of it.

2. Cleveland Guardians - they came out of nowhere to get to the post season - can they again? I think the Tigers will be more consistent, and good, so it would be very hard. They do know how to hang around though, and they don't have anyone throwing games this year, that might help.

3. KC Royals - they have some talent, around Bobby Witt, around their good young pitching - get healthy, hit the ball and they might be okay. I think they have a hard hill to climb to reach the post season though.

4. Chicago White Sox - there is no reason to pick them here, except they did improve by 20 runs last year so another 10 is not impossible. Some youth coming into its own, who knows. 70 wins would be like the World Series for them, though.

5. Minnesota Twins - they have been imposing theist couple years, already lost a starter - I don't see much happening here, besides lots of offers for Joe Ryan.

AL West:

1. Seattle Mariners - they seem pretty well established as the cream out here. I don't see much reason for a regression as a team. Maybe this si their year!

2. Texas Rangers - will they stay healthy? can they get 160 innings from DeGrom and Eovaldi each? will Seager play all year? if things go right, they could be pretty good - they could also disappear. 

3. Houston Astros - they seem to be on the way out - though still dangerous. There is still plenty of talent, I suppose - some of it aging - maybe. I don't see them getting all that far - they don't look like they will be better than last year. The breaks in either direction could change things, but I see mediocrity.

4) Athletics - they will hammer the ball. Kurts, Rooker, Wilson, Langeliers, etc - they will hammer the ball. Do they have any pitching? will any of their pitchers make their sanity rolls pitching in Sacramento? Good question. But I could see them getting past a couple teams in the west.

5) California Angels - I don't think they are necessarily terrible. They certainly are not good. But one of these years Mike Trout is going to be happy and is going to have one pf those Remember Me seasons - if anyone else shows up, they might be better. Meaning - the west is a crap shoot,a nd most of these teams could almost be respectable in spite fo themselves.

NL East:

1) Philadelphia Phillies - this might depend on Zach Wheeler recovering sooner rather than later - but they have pitching, hitting - they have a team. I don't see as much potential for chaos as I go a bit further north up the coast. 

2) NY Mets - I don't want to pick them this high. They rearranged all the parts, some obviously better, some not so much, all of it with the potential for chaos. They have talent, though, and might well keep it together for once.

3) Atlanta Braves - they disappeared last year - will they come back? Acuna might be healthy, right? Olson and Riley and company are all decent - they have Sale and such in the rotation - they could be fine. They could be a good deal less than fine, if they keep losing pitchers though. 

4) Miami Marlins - I am know baseball better these days than the last couple years, but the Marlins might be the limit - I don't know if I can name a single player on the roster. Sandy Alcantera maybe? I think they have the makings of a passable mediocre team; more than that would be a shock.

5) Washington Nationals - I can name a couple of them! one anyway - James Wood! wait - CJ Abrams? Two then? I don't expect anything from them, but they might get into the 70s as well, I don't know.

NL Central:

1) Milwaukee Brewers - maybe a risk, but I think they will find their way back to the top of the Central. Maybe not top fo the majors, but they should still hold their own. Lots of depth and good players everywhere. They should be fine.

2) Chicago Cubs - they have talent, yes, but they are the Cubs and - I don't know. I actually saw most of their first game, and they did not inspire. I know they have talent, but I don't know if it is going to be enough.

3) Cincinnati Reds - they don't seem to have gotten better or worse - they were not that great last year. I think they will lurk where they were - low 80s, nip the playoff spot if no one else wants it. 

4) Pittsburgh Pirates - they have Skenes, they have some other players - they stunk the building out in their opener, but that was a pretty freaky inning, I don't see a lot of that coming. I don't know if the defense is as bad as it looked or if that was just the New York sun - I don't know. I think they are all right, I don't think they are going to win anything though. 

5) St Louis Cardinals - uh oh - another team I can't name a single player on? Ryne Stanek! I picked him up in fantasy, when he got his first save! I Alsop have Alec Burleson on a fantasy team, though it comes as a revelation that he is on the Cards. That's all I need to say here I think.

NL West:

1. LA Dodgers - will they win three on the trot? it was bloody close last year - there are still several teams that could match them in a 4 game series - it will be hard. Will they? they could. This may  cause some consternation, but I have a hard time being unhappy about teams that use their resources to become a better team. God knows plenty of them try, but the Dodgers are actually good at it. And honestly - if they win this year, that would give Mookie 5 rings, which matches Derek Jeter, and how can that be bad? (Will I carry this grudge to my grave? I will. Could Mookie have won four rings for Boston? he might have had a harder time, but he should have gotten a couple or three - match Papi and Pedroia (minus Manny Machado). The last few years in Bean town would have been a lot more fun and competitive with Mookie Betts on the team.) 

2. SD Padres - they should be in the wild card hunt. I say should. I see Nick Pivetta is back to normal. Still - they have talent, can they play together? they should be solid, but not very interesting.

3. Arizona Diamondbacks - they have some good players; they have been shedding them the last couple years, but still have the core. I don't expect a lot, but they usually hang around .500 and with some breaks can challenge for more. without the breaks - say goodbye to Ketel Marte.

4. SF Giants - mediocrity on the west coast. I don't see anything likely to change out there. Raffy Devers? I mean - might get some nice home run numbers but that's about all.

5. Colorado Rockies - I would hope they couldn't be any worse.

And filling in the blanks:

Playoffs = NY, Detroit, Seattle, Boston, Toronto and - Baltimore? don't ask me to pick the owner. I will say Boston, because that is what I want. though again - almost any of those teams except the Yankees would be more than satisfying.

NL = Phillies, Brewers, Dodgers - Mets, Padres and probably the Cubs. Dodgers would win through. I hope so, unless the Brew crew finally get there.

AL Awards: MVP - still Judge's to lose, but he's going to get company from Witt, Anthony and maybe Kurtz any time now. Cy Young - this year, I think Crochet takes it, though Skull is still the real deal. Rookie? McGonagle? right? I don't really know.

NL: MVP - remains Ohtani's to lose; when he does - Acuna, if he's completely recovered. Cy Young - Skenes should be, though he laid an egg yesterday; will the bunkers carry forwa4rd enough to hurt his chances? Christopher Sanchez looks like the real deal again. Sale still has the arm, Yamamoto's no slouch. Rookie - not sure - maybe Konnor Griffin, if the Pirates decide they need him up. 

Fall Baseball

Once again this humble blog has gone completely silent for half a year. But how better to break that silence than another baseball post? well - it's what I've got.

We are well into the post season, and it is too cool a post-season not to say something. My dear Red Sox got back into the post-season, only to be unceremoniously bounced by the Evil Empire, but they were a fun team all year and I am not going to complain. They look like they will be a fun team in the future - Crochet was All That and More; the young players turned up and produced - Roman Anthony looks like he is going to he The Man for a while - he was this year, until he got hurt. Mayer should be useful, Campbell should still be useful, they have more young talent - and at the end of the year three (3) lefty rookies came in and showed real potential on the hill - Tolle, Harrison and Early. They have the makings of a good team - we'll see if they can capitalize on it.

But that's not really why I'm doing this. It's the playoffs. We've reach the league championship series' - we have the Blue Jays vs the Mariners and the Brewers vs the Dodgers. How long has it been since we have had that cool a pool of teams vying for the world series? We could get a Seattle/Milwaukee series - two teams that have never won the world series. We could get the Blue Jays and their 32 year drought, and Canada, we could have the Dodgers, with a chance to be the first team to repeat since the dreaded Yankees in 2000. It is always a treat to see a team win their first, or break a very long dry spell - we've had those things this century, with the Sox (x2) breaking curses, and the Angels, Astros, Nats and Rangers all getting their first. Two teams have a shot this year - it would be very cool. Especially the Mariners, who have never even played in the world series, despite having fielded the winningest team ever back in 2001. 

But the Jays would be fun as well. And then there is Los Angeles. I am the sort of fan who wants my team to win - has a few secondary teams (the Mariners are one, for some weird reason) - and then roots for either good stories/underdogs on one side or - dominance. Give me a first time winner or the first repeater in 25 years - they are both exciting. 

Though all that is a lie. There is a very simple reason I am really hoping the Dodgers win, and will probably cheer for them over even the Mariners, despite hating the Dodgers almost as much as the Yankees for my entire life. Entire life before February 10, 2020. Fucking red sox. This year's reason to be astonished - Mookie Betts ended up as the third most valuable defender in the game, per Baseball Reference. At Short stop, in his first full season at short stop, the hardest position on the field - aged 32. He was off the boil at the plate this year, well below his usual standards there, though still passable, especially for the best defensive shortstop in the game - and for all that, he was basically as good a hitter as Trevor Story, for instance. So - go Mookie.

But again - any of these teams winning will make me happy. 

(I have to add - if Mookie was the third best defender in baseball this year, it is a bit gratifying to see that the second best defender in the game was Ceddanne Rafaela, who's credentials as the second coming of Jackie Bradley Jr get stronger every year, complete with being one fo the best hitters in the game for a random month. Though Rafaela, to be fair, is also capable of playing a credible second base and shortstop. Not up to Mookie levels, but he's a useful player. He has helped mellow my resentment at the local 9, along with a few of their other young players.)

(The best defender in baseball, per Baseball Reference, is Ernie Clement of the Blue Jays - who slapped the ball around okay, but played apparently stellar defense at 2b, 3b, and didn't embarrass himself at SS. Whatever that is worth. 2.9 WAR, apparently.)

Baseball Again

It is that magical time of the year again - baseball season once again. It is so magical it revives this poor sad blog! well - this year it does; last year I didn't manage it. 2020 and 2021 I didn't manage it, 2020 because it was in the middle of the plague and who knows when there would be any baseball to care about - 21? I blame the patheticness of the Red Sox in 2020. And of course both those years were heavily influenced by the lingering impact of the most disgraceful episode in recent Boston sports history - Mookie! Who trades Mookie Betts! Jesus Christ!

I have not forgiven them.

But Mookie has 2 more rings, and the Sox do not appear to be as pathetic as recently - so - we shall try it again. Not that I follow baseball closely enough to have much to offer - but I won't let that stop me. Here we go!

AL East:

1. New York - not that I like it, but they have players, pitchers, and money - why not? who is going to beat them? well - a couple teams might - but probably not. One never gives up hope though.

2. Boston - there's no good reason for picking them this high, but I will anyway. They were back to mediocrity last year - they developed some pitching, they developed a number of decent young position players - and they have some high end prospects on the farm - Campbell, Anthony, Mayer. They traded for Crochet, they anted up for Bregman, they are probably going to make poor Raffy Devers DHG after all, which will make the team stronger in every way. They are intriguing - maybe even exciting! Duran is exciting. The pitching could be - though it is still too reliant on some fragile arms - Crochet? Houck? Buehler? all good - all fragile. So - things could go spectacularly wrong; but they could also go very well. And odds are they will be more fun, as those young guys develop - even if they stink, they won't stink forever.

3. Baltimore - they have a ton of great young talent; they have had a hard time keeping a fully functional pitching staff on the field. It could all click again, and they could be dominant again - though I would have thought that last year and they were just really good. So - gonna have to play the games I guess.

4. Toronto - they have talent; I don't know if they are good enough to beat anyone. But they might. I mean - between my lack of familiarity with the current teams and their own tendency toward wild variability, there will be a lot of throwing up of the hands this year. Like here!

5. Tampa Bay - hey, playing in a minor league park might help them more than it hurts! I doubt it.

AL Central:

1. Detroit - any reason for this, other than they were wonderfully overachievers last year? And Skubal? Maybe not, but that's a start.

2. Kansas City - they also wildly overachieved (though I saw people calling this one before the season started, and I believed it.) Lugo, Wacha, et al, created stability on the hill; and Bobby Witt Jr is pretty fucking amazing. They still feel like a fun underdog, but maybe with some experience - why not?

3. Cleveland - there's a lot of talent here too, though they seem unwilling to let the team get too good. Jose Ramirez is still shockingly underrated. They should continue to do pretty well. Though - this whole division feels like a bunch of dark horses - one 0or two fo them will perform, the rest - might not.

4. Minnesota might even contend. I don't know. They should beat Chicago though.

5. Chicago White Sox - oh yeah. They can't be any worse, anyway.

AL West:

1. Texas - this may not be justified by anything other than - they won the world series; they sagged rather badly the next year - they could bounce back! Some players underperformed last year - they still have some real talent - why not? Maybe Jacob DeGrom won't be hurt all year - which might be enough to win the division by himself. It's not a bad bet, I think.

2. Houston - I think - are they any good? Kyle Tucker and Bregman are gone - Altuve and Alvarez are still there - they have pitching - they should be fine. They don't feel like powerhouses though.

3. Seattle - they keep flirting with being really good; great pitching, some excellent talent - will they put it all together? Maybe? An awful lot of baseball feels like this muddly middle, all of a sudden. At least other than the Dodgers, Braves and maybe the Phillies?

4. Oakland - they were supposed to be one fo the worst teams in baseball history last year, but the White Sox beat them to the punch. They have some interesting players. They are out of Oakland - is that good or bad? (Bad, overall, but who knows, it might be liberating, after the fuckery surrounding that franchise the last few years.) 

5. LA Angels - the poor bastards. I hope Mike Trout can be healthy again for a couple years. I don't expect him to have anything around him, but come on! give the man something.

National League:

NL East:

1. Atlanta - they are pretty damned good. If Acuna and Strider are back, they should be one fo the teams to beat - even without them, they are very strong.

2. Philadelphia - why not. Harper and Turner and Wheeler and the like are still solid, make a good team. They are not going anywhere. 

3. NY Mets - hey, maybe Soto puts them over the top. More likely, they go through their usual high drama, middle of the pack season, with disappointment and vitriol the primary themes. They seem to draw that stuff.

4. Washington - they seem to be trying to rebuild a team.

5. Miami - they don't.

NL Central:

1. Milwaukee - they win every year, why not this one?

2. Cincinnati - any reason for this? Terry Francona and Ely De la Cruz? This is a very boring division, so why not? Francona might be the difference.

3. St Louis - if it matters.

4. Chicago - I am trying to muster any interest in finding out who they have. Kyle Tucker! there you go! Pete Crow Armstrong, a name that deserves a couple wins all by itself!

5. Pittsburg - I don't know any reason to think they will be any good, but I sure hope they are. Paul Skenes? All right - that makes them a team to watch once in a while. You also hope to heck they get a team behind him worthy of him.

NL West:

1. Los Angeles - I mean, obviously. Why not? Mookie! Shohei! Freddie Freeman! all right. Everyone has been whining all winter about how they break all competitive balance, though it's not like the NY teams can't spend a buck when they want to, though usually not with quite such impact. And this is baseball - you can throw money at it, but that isn't going to win everything every year. They play the games. But that said - I don't care. I'd as soon see them win as anyone - they seem to have a knack not only for spending money, and spending it on worthy ball players - but spending it in a way that makes watching them more fun! Have the Yankees at their spendingest ever been fun? Hell no! Some of the crazier red sox teams were fun - a lot of the Boston winners were fun. Were the Astros fun when they were dominating the game? Not terribly. Were the 90s Braves fun? I mean - yes, from a purist perspective, but what's best about the Dodgers is that they are a purist's team - who can't love Mookie or Freddie Freeman, as old fashioned, fundamentally sound, ball players? as well as being genuinely a showtime team - or a Shoheitime team, if you know what I mean and you better. So yeah - let em win. If the Sox can't (and they probably can't), give Mookie ring number 4! and let them trade for Mike Trout at the deadline. 

2. San Diego - they are pretty good too, truth to tell. They get forgotten, but they are likely to be hanging around at the end.

3. Arizona - another pretty good team, with a why not shot at winning.

4. San Francisco - not so sure abouyt them, though.

5. Colorado - thank god for the White Sox, huh?

Well - there you have it. Very random this year, with spotty knowledge and maybe a bit more indifference than in the past. But hey - it's still a beautiful game.

I'll be rooting for the Red Sox, hoping they give a good accounting of themselves - and won't be rooting against the Dodgers, no matter how much money they have. Save my ire for the Yankees and Mets, the traditional enemies. 

Spring Springing (ie, Baseball)

 Hello world. I am still kicking around out here, though I am not kicking around here much anymore. The world has changed. But Baseball is back, and though I don't really have anythign profound to say about it - I am going to say something.

Things are different in the baseball world. The game keeps trying to upgrade itself, with - well, some kind of results. This year, the big noise is about pitch clocks - requiring pitchers and hitters to get in there and play, with consequences for time wasting. There may be some downsides to this - I don't know what they are likely to be. Sure, it would be nice of players got on with things unprodded, but they did not, so, prod away! I don't know if this will end up solving anything, but it seems to me to be abn altogether good thing.

Other rules? they have done something with shifts - I haven't paid too close attention to it, so I can't comment too much. I don't think I like it - I don't think I would like any restrictions on how you play defense. It bugs me. And bugs me that they are changing the rules to help players who aren't good enough or smart enough to go the other way once in a while. Why change the rules to help Joey Gallo? that makes no sense. That is my general take on it. In fact, I don't know if I would even notice. 

Good enough. The main damage with rules changes came a couple years ago when they started putting runners on base in extra innings. Disgraceful! I don't know what to say about crap like that.

So I won't say anything. Instead, the traditional uninformed guesses about who shall win what this year. Less informed than I used to be, for sure.

AL East:

1. Tampa - they are undefeated so far. I mean - it's early and all, but they were always going to be one of the main contenders. How they do it I don't know, but they do. Will they last? More likely than not.

2. NY Yankees - hateful as it is, I suppose they are going to be in the thick of things.

3. Toronto - off to a bad start, but they have too much talent to stay bad. They should be in the post season picture all year.

4. Baltimore - I don't know if I believe that they will stay ahead of the sox all year, but they did last year, and the red sox - yikes. Put the O's ahead and hope I am wrong.

5. Boston - yikes. They are hitting, at least they hit the first series. They are hard to gauge - bad as Sale and Kluber were the first time out, they could find their groove and be useful again. It happens. Look at late John Lackey; look at Verlander post elbow surgery. If it does happen, the sox could be a lot better than this. If it doesn't happen, the rest fo the staff is dire, and the offense is not one to carry them. So, lots of margin for error on any kind of pick. Though - bad is the most likely, unfortunately.

AL Central:

1. Cleveland - they seem to be still right there. 

2. Minnesota - off to a good start, and carrying some decent players. Joey Gallo, with the rules in his favor! And Carlos Correa, whose every attempt to escape the twin cities was thwarted. There's a guy with something to prove. So - yeah, they might be in it for the long haul.

3. Chicago - I think they missed their chance to be a contendere, but they should be decent I would think.

4. Detroit - you know; after thoughts. Which is better than being dogs.

5. KC - probably dogs. What do they have on this team? Oh my god! Jackie Bradley Jr.!

AL West:

1. Houston - obviously.

2. Seattle - solid last year, and should be right in the thick of things this year.

3. Angels - poor Mike Trout and Shohei Otani. Get some life around them! give thm a shot! They are doing okay so far - keep it up boys! keep it up!

4. Texas - they're passable so far, but I don't see much hope. They keep throwing money around, but it doesn't seem to work. They have Jacob de Grom, but he gave up more in his first start than in his entire major league career to date [that might be a slight exaggeration], and he is not young or healthy anymore. They also have Nathan Eovaldi to take up a DL slot. So - it would be nice to see them play well, but it's not likely.

5. Oakland - I don't see a lot of wins here.

NL East:

1. Atlanta - they seem to be carrying on as before.

2. NY Mets - they keep signing ancient but still viable pitchers, and should hang around. I don't know if they can live up to last year though.

3. Philly - off to a bad start, but they have a decent team, and should do all right.

4. Miami - they show up, right? 

5. Washington - do they show up? They'd be better off if they didn't.

NL Central:

1. St. Louis - they still have the core; they should be fine.

2. Milwaukee - they're usually respectable, and are playing well early - no reason to pick against them.

3. Chicago - I don't know fi they are any good, but - they have some ball players. Maybe they will amount top something.

4. Pittsburgh - they have been working over the hapless Red Sox this week. I hope they win some games - Pirates fans deserve a bit of success.

5. Reds - anything to see here? No idea, frankly. 

NL West:

1. LA Dodgers - see Houston above. They're already winning, unless the Astros.

2. San Diego - they have signed every shortstop in the western hemisphere and a few in the eastern. Sooner or later it should pay off. (Xander Bogaerts has three bombs!)

3. San Francisco - I suppose so. Who do they have these days? I am too lazy to click.

4. Arizona - there is no reason to pick them ahead of Colorado except they are off to a better start and I have a couple of them on a fantasy team. That's enough for me.

5. Colorado - vice versa. I do hope Daniel Bard comes back - he's always been a fascinating story, and a guy I want to see doing well.

Okay - that's that. That means the post season? 

AL: TB - Cleveland - Houston; wild cards = New York - Seattle - Toronto, in the end.

NL: Atlanta - SL - LA; wild cards: San Diego - New York - Milwaukee.

There you go. The default World Series I suppose is Houston and LA; NY or TB are quite capable... so are Atlanta, SD, SL I would think. No surprises, I suppose. For a good black horse? What the hell - Boston! Sale and Kluber healthy - I don't believe it, but I will say it, because there's no point picking a surprise if they're not going to be surprising. Or the Angels, for most of the same reasons. 

We'll see if I get anything right other than LA and Houston... 

Sports Ball Returns!

Time for some Baseball Predictions. I haven't posted one of these in a couple years - they were a staple on this humble blog for a long time, but things have been fucked up and bullshit for the last couple years... This year it looked like baseball was oging to be fucked up and bullshit, but somehow they unfucked it at the last minute. It is - well, it is a relief, my friends. Enough so that I will not spend half this post whining about the stupid rules they are foisting on us, from that runner on second in extras to - whatever other stupid rules I was going to vent about. I will stick to predicting! Though honestly, I have almost no idea what is going on in baseball anymore, so these predictions will be somewhere between rolling dice and parroting ESPN. Hey - can't let that stop me! 

AL EAST:

1. Tampa Bay - I don't really know who to pick, to tell the truth. This is widely regarded as an extraordinarily deep division - yeah, it is. I should probably just pick Boston to win, but instead I;ll go with Tampa to repeat. Largely because the game has evolved into a short innings pitching game and no one has mastered the art of openers and middle relief more than the Rays. 

2. Boston - because I am not picking the Yankees, and am not sure about Toronto. But yeah. this is pretty arbitrary. I do think the Sox are going to do well - obviously some of the pitching health is key - but they should hit, and I think they are going to get more pitching than they let on. If Sale ever comes back? Why not dream big?

3. Toronto - they have got a lot of talent on there don't they. They have Kevin Gausman? Was last year real? etc. At least beat the Yankees, all right boys?

4. NY - probably not bad at all, but it's the Yankees! I have to hope they lose.

5. Baltimore - poor Baltimore.

AL CENTRAL:

1. Everyone's picking Chicago - I suppose they should, shouldn't they? They look like they should do all right, though - will they?

2. Minnesota - they went from world beaters to awful last year and - now they have CArlos Correa - they have Gary Sanchez, and will they have the sense to let him bat without donning the tools of ignorance? They should be back in the thick of it, though do they have pitching?

3. Cleveland Guardians - Tito's back, Ramirez and Bieber are there - I am reaching the limits of my knowledge. They should have a shot, right?

4. Detroit - I am shocked to discover that Detroit wasn't terrible last year. Not good, but not terrible. They have Javier Baez now, and Austin Meadows - they have E-Rod! I love E-Rod, and wish him well. I hope the cats exceed expectations and win something this year. They might not be all that bad.

5. KC Royals - I can't name a single player on this team in 2022. I will now go look them up: holy crap! Zach Greinke is back! And I forgot about Andrew Benintendi and young Mondesi. They were not awful last year. who knows, perhaps they won't be awful this year. 

AL West:

1. Houston - I mean, they are supposed to win it.

2. Seattle - they were pretty good last year, look like they could be decent this year. No harm in it.

3. Angels - can they be any good? who cares - I hope to god they are good. a team with Tr9out and Ohtani together better win something, just once - win something! 

4. Oakland - I think they are planning for the future again. I'm sure they will get back into things. Tampa west kind of right?

5. Texas - can I name anyone on this team? They have Martin Perez back! and though I could not have named them - I see they have Corey Seager and Marcus Sieman - maybe there's life in the middle of Texas too. 

Champs? Odds are still good on Houston, I think. Though sure - any of the east teams, the White Sox all have a real shot, and a couple fo the dark horses might get in on the fun.

NL East:

1. Atlanta - don't have Freddie Freeman, should get Ronald Acuna back - no reason to pick against them.

2. Philadelphia - I don't know if there's any reason to pick them, but I am going to. I like a bunch of these guys. Go get em!

3. Mets - I see their luck is holding up, with de Grom and Scherzer hurt. I like de Grom and Scherzer, and Lindor, but I don't like the Mets. They can lose.

4. Washington - Soto deserves better. Though he has his ring.

5. Miami - I have heard of some of the guys on their roster, though I wouldn't have guessed they were in Miami. Yep. Nope.

NL Central:

1. Milwaukee ot repeat - works for me.

2. St Louis - seems about right. They have what they had, right, more or less? no major changes?

3. Chicago - no good reason to pick them ahead of the Reds is there? No good reason not to, right?

4. Reds - ditto, reversed? I don't know. ˜either of these teams look like contenders, but they aren't the Pirates either.

5. The Pirates appear to be the Pirates, though.

NL West:

1. LA Dodgers - it is a force of nature out there. Fine - prove it! Win another one for Mookie!

2. San Diego - this may not be justified, but they looked ready last year, went completely to shit in the second half - I think things will get better. 

3. SF Giants - they won far more than they had any right to last year, and things are likely to correct - but it's still a good team, and a team that plays as a team, so - yeah, they will be in on the action.

4. Colorado - I mean, they don't look awful, on paper, do they? they aren't challenging fo9r anything.

5. Arizona - it's my favorite refraibn - until I looked them up, I could not have named any of them. Now - I did sort of remember that Madison Bumgarner was there, and Ketel Marte existed - that's about it. I don't see a lot of wins there.

Champs? Gotta pick the Dodgers, obviously. There are a few teams that could do it, with any luck, though.

World Series? I know what I want - Boston vs Atlanta. I don't think I can stand to watch Boston take on Mookie, though. I have not forgiven them for trading him, and will not. So Dodgers it is, and no complaint.

Hall of Infamy

I should be happy - David Ortiz is in the Hall of Fame. But I am not going to beat around the bush: this might be the moment that delegitimizes it completely. As everyone who cares must know - Ortiz is in; the likes of Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens are not in. (There are others - Curt Schilling, say - who are also not in, but the reasons are different; and the reasons are the point here.) This is not justifiable. Now we all know - Bonds and Clemens are out because they are accused of steroid use. Pretty creditably, as well. But so is David Ortiz. And that is where the thing breaks down. It's where I have to concede Dan Shaughnessy's point (and I am not one to concede much to Dan Shaughnessy.) If you can't vote for Bonds or Clemens, you can't vote for Big Papi. If you are going to vote for Ortiz, you damned sure better vote for Bonds and Clemens who are obvious and indisputable Great Players in the game.

Complete assholes of course.

Personally, I do not think steroid use should be an automatic disqualifier. I have written about it before - specifically about Ortiz, when he was on the 2003 list. I was, back in 09, far less cynical than I should have been, thinking that Ortiz' presence on the list would make at least Boston fans realize that steroids were simply a Fact of the Game in those days, and let at least Roger back into their hearts. Oh ye of too much faith! Still: I don't think steroid use should disqualify anyone, any more than using uppers would kick Mickey Mantle out, or throwing spitballs disqualified Gaylord Perry, or every white player before Jacky Robinson should be removed. It was, in that era, part of the game. 

Manny Ramirez? that might be a different story - getting caught after the testing regimes went in and were enforced - that might be different. And I am still inclined to try to parse out how steroid era players would have faired in other times. You know how Clemens and Bonds would have fared, because they had made a better than average hall of fame case before they even started using - but Sosa and McGwire? That might involve some calculation. A Rod and Manny - ah - well - A Rod especially might have cheated his whole career - but wasn't he enough better than all the other cheaters that you have to consider him still one fo the best in the game? Ah, such calculations.

And there might be some fun to be had in trying to figure out whether Ortiz belongs in on the merits. It's an interesting case: being a DH, his advanced value isn't great - he's just a bat. But how much credit should you give to specialists? Closers and power hitters and defensive whizzes, who don't get the across the board WAR numbers of a great short stop or starting pitcher or outfielder? Ortiz looked the part - he raked from the time he got to Boston to the end, and even his off years offered some gaudy counting stats. And he did it under pressure, whatever that is worth. Can't deny that. Would it be enough?

But those are just thought games. In fact, the writers vote people into the hall of fame, and they are voting in a way that cannot be taken seriously. If Ortiz is in and Bonds is not, the hall is not about the best players the game has seen. If Ortiz were clean, maybe you could make some kind of weird moral argument about cheating - but he wasn't. He was caught at least once, and - you know - you watch his career and it's hard not to believe it. He went from being a promising slugger to a world beater the year he joined a team with Manny Ramirez and a Giambi. Circumstantial evidence is not entirely useless. 

So there it is. A shame, really, because I don't like kvetching about Ortiz. I would vote for him - the WAR numbers might not be great, but I saw what he did for a team. And while he didn't really win those three world series all alone (though he came close in 2013) - in 2004 and 2013 he certainly got hits that got them there, as directly as you can ask. (Those two extra inning winners against the Yankees; the grand slam against the Tigers in 13.) He also helped me win three straight fantasy leagues, in the mid 10s - though Barry Bonds won me three or four fantasy championships over the years too. What can I say? Spare me the moralism, and especially, space me the hypocrisy. 

Expos! Nats! Baseball!

Well, this blog may be just about laid to rest, but it is Halloween, so what better time to raise it from the dead and send it stumbling about in search of topics to devour....

Right. No. I see the last time I managed to post was, in fact, the beginning of the baseball season - so why not come back for another baseball post? I don't get to celebrate the Red Sox this year - but I can settle for watching the Nationals take their first championship.

I've been enough of an Expos fan through the years that this feels really good. I remember watching them from very early in their history. I have relatives in Canada, and we'd visit,a nd we'd watch the Expos on TV. Most fo the Canadian family were Red Sox fans, but I'm not sure they got to watch the Sox on TV - the Expos, on the other hand, had a few games aired - I think. Because I remember the old Spos - Rusty Staub! John Bocabella! Ron Hunt! - on TV up there. sitting in my grandmother's kitchen, watching the game, with my parents and a couple uncles and some older cousins, talking and watching baseball. Through the years, I paid attention to the Expos - usually because of the Canadian connections. A few of the kids my age picked pu the Expos as their favorite team (though most stuck with the Sox, or went with the Blue Jays when they were created - the younger kids, I think.) But all of them knew the Canadian teams, probably, again, because they were on Canadian television. So I knew the Expos more than I knew most of the National League - Ellis Valentine and Andre Dawson and Gary Carter and Stave Rogers - and of course, the Spaceman. (The first Expos team to get screwed by labor strife?)

And I followed the next generation - the late 80s early 90s teams that could drive you crazy. (And got really screwed by labor strife.) Grissom and DeShields and Larry Walker and the Cat, Dennis Martinez, Ivan Calderon, John Wetteland and Mel Rojas; Cliff Floyd, Wil Cordero, Orlando Cabrera, Vlad Guerrerro - Pedro! (Until they very generously donated him to the Sox.) A great team that kept disintegrating and being rebuilt for most of a decade, until their owners managed to demolish them completely and get them moved to Washington. After that - I still liked them, nostalgically, wished them well - but they were just a team. Though not just a franchise....

And so now, after 50 years, they have managed to win it all. In a most spectacular and strange manner - 7 games in which no one managed to win at home! Against a powerhouse team and franchise - though as we were constantly reminded, after the first couple months of the season, the Nats were tied with the Stros for the best record in baseball. The Nats have been there before - very good teams, that collapsed in a heap in the post-season. It's nice to see them finish one off. And very nice to add the franchise to the teams to win a World Series. The last 20 years have been goods ones for baseball teams killing curses - The Angels, Astros and now the Expos/Nats have won their first, after long waits; the Sox (Red and White), Cubs, Giants (who waited 50 odd years between championships) purged their demons, etc. It's always satisfying.

And - it made for a good series. Two very good teams, with elite pitching, two teams you could basically like (Roberto Osuna aside), good stories - and a very fine game to finish it off, Scherzer grinding out five innings with clearly less than his best stuff (since his best is as good as anyone has had this decade), Greinke turning in an absolutely dominant performance, with one changeup sitting in the middle fo the plate to hit all night, and it all turning on a wounded duck home run that hit the opposite field foul pole. Ha! Great fun!

Anyway: I was wondering what I thought about the Nats this year - I see I probably summed up their entire season rather neatly, good and bad:

2. Washington - they underachieved woefully last year, as if they thought they made the playoffs on opening day, and started choking early. Now they don't have Harper anymore - but they are still pretty loaded. Turner and Rendon and Soto, maybe Victor Robles - the rotation, which is very strong. This is avery competitive division, and they are as likely to run the table as anyone.

They wasted the first couple months, but after that, they ran the table, including taking out a couple very very good teams in the Dodgers and Astros. It's a nice result, and helps ease the pain of the Red Sox' pitching staff woes that took them out of the race from day one...

Baseball 2019 Predictions

Though it is still cold here in the woods of Maine, it is time for baseball - Sox start up tomorrow, out on the west coast - there have already been two games! The Mariners are well on the way to an undefeated season! etc. Spring is coming - it might see 50 this weekend! Time for our annual baseball blowout post - let's get at it, shall we?

AL East:
1. Boston - I may be a homer. When they fall out of contention, I pick them until they win; when they are winning, I pick them until they lose. There's no reason to pick against them this year (except the Yankees) - they brought back most of a dominant team, and while their luck may fail, or they may regress, they have plenty of areas where they could get better. Sale could last the whole season, or E Rod; the catchers have both hit in the past, and could again (at least league average, for catchers), and are both prime defenders; Devers and even Benintendi could get a lot better. So why not?

2. NY Yankees - They were good last year, if not as good as the Sox; they tried to bolster the rotation and bullpen, but they are not having the best of luck. Gregorius is out for at least half the season; Severino is having trouble; Hicks is hurt again. But they still have plenty of pop - Judge and Stanton, Andukar and Torres, maybe Sanchez healthy - they will be in the 90s at least, and could be better than that.

3. Tampa - they hired another actual starting pitcher! I can’t guess what will happen to them. They look dead, but they contend; one of these years they’ll look great breaking camp and disappear. Who knows. However they divide up the innings, they have a lot of pitching talent, and some interesting position players - they should hang around, hoping to pick off the also rans in the West and Central. Sox and Yanks are probably out of their reach unless things go very bad in the northeast, but Tampa should be in reach of the playoffs.

4. Toronto - they looked like they could be Tampa north a couple years ago, with Stroman and Estrada and Sanchez and Happ - it didn’t happen, and I don’t see it happening again any time soon. But pitchers are volatile - someone like Stroman could suddenly be back at his best. Stranger things have happened. But that’s just hoping for a shot at the Rays’ wild card spot, no more. Mostly they're just waiting for Vlad 2.

5. Baltimore - they've been cruising for a fall the last couple years, but when it came, it all came at once. Did it ever. It's not getting better this year - Davis is still around, to cash checks and strike out - Trumpb is hurt, but might come back. Otherwise, it's - not much. I suppose you need to have a couple of these teams around to get 2 teams over 100 wins in a season in a division.

AL Central:
1. Cleveland - they are starting to cur it close. They still have an all world rotation, they still have Ramirez and Lindor, two of the best in the game - though it's not certain when they'll have them. (Lindor coming in hurt, and getting hurt again...) They still have Tito and they have the AL central to beat, so they should be all right when they get healthy.

2. Minnesota - I am hearing hype about them. They were terrible last year - but very good the year before; terrible the year before that, and very good the year before that. You tell me. They are young, though not as young as they have been - players have stalled out (Sano), or left (Escobar and Dozier), but they still seem to be all right. They have a new manager, Rocco Baldelli, another young, smart guy - who knows. This is a year for winning, so why not? If everything goes right, they might challenge the Indians; if enough goes right, they might still challenge the Indians, if they fade, and stay in there against Tampa and whatever west teams show up after the second wild card. Decent contention is probably about right.

3. Detroit - might be a stretch, but they are not terrible, necessarily. I admit, along about here I start to tune out. Trying to form an opinion of which of these teams is going to get to 78 wins this year is not an easy or pleasant task.

4 Chicago - the pale hose at least have some interesting young talent. There was talk in the off season about getting into the Machado or Harper sweepstakes, but they did not get any of them, so what do we have? Another year of finding out if Yoan Moncado will reach base as often as he strikes out. 217 strikeouts! More than Joey Gallo! With 23 fewer home runs! He actually looks like he will turn into something, eventually - he’s not exactly a liability now (any more than Gallo). They might be sort of interesting, as a team, to see how they go.

5. Kansas City - I’d rather get on to the west now, thanks. They aren’t the team to win 78 and tease their fans with hopes of a wild card for a few weeks in August. They are the ones trying to win more than Baltimore.

AL West:
1. Houston - Like Boston and NY, they were incredibly good last year, haven’t lost a lot (some of their nice spare parts, like Marwyn Gonzalez, a couple pitchers), but they have plenty more where they came from (signing Brantley, developing people like Josh James.) They aren’t going anywhere, and I don’t think anyone in this division is likely to catch them.

2. Oakland - this division is interesting, at least. The A’s won a ton last year, but they lost some pitching and I don’t know if they have anything to replace it with. The offense looks okay - Davis and Piscotty and Chapman and so on - but it might not be enough. The rest of the division looks intriguing without quite being convincing. I suppose it comes down to which surprising starting pitchers emerge - of course that’s usually true. They seem to have the strongest base line to build on, though.

3. Angels - lots of joy over Trout’s signing, and hope when Ohtani is able to hit again, and - that’s about it. Still missing the pitching to really contend, I think, but a bit of luck gets them into the race with Tampa and Minnesota for that second wild card. Hard to see them catching Houston though.

4. Seattle - 2-0 start! They unloaded their expensive talent, and some good talent - Paxton, Segura, Cruz and Cano all gone - what does it mean? Likely that they sink down into the 70s and stop teasing us, but they never seem to do what they are supposed to, so who knows.

5. Texas - they still have some pop - Gallo and Odor (who came back a bit last year) and the like, but there’s not much more to say about them. Beltre is gone, so there’s less sentimental reason to cheer for them. They have the rotation of which 100 loss seasons are made...

NL East:
1. Philadelphia - screw you, all the rest of you! This is less about Bryce Harper than the rest fo the team - Segura, Realmuto, even McCutcheon, Robertson - it's a nice team, solid everywhere, with Nola to anchor the rotation, Harper to be an offensive centerpiece. Why not? The biggest drawback is the difficulty of bringing a retooled team together immediately - and Gabe Kapler, for all his merits, didn't seem to handle the team quite right last year.

2. Washington - they underachieved woefully last year, as if they thought they made the playoffs on opening day, and started choking early. Now they don't have Harper anymore - but they are still pretty loaded. Turner and Rendon and Soto, maybe Victor Robles - the rotation, which is very strong. This is avery competitive division, and they are as likely to run the table as anyone.

3. Atlanta - maybe. Some issues with injuries, but they are also stacked with young talent, and old talent - it's a good team. Acuna should be a superstar; the rest are solid everywhere. Again - this division is going to come down to who executes, and who stays healthy.

4. NY Mets - there's even optimism in Queens! DeGrom and Syndegard and Wheeler and - the usual story, a great rotation, offensive questions, defense. They added Cano, but who long can he be expected to hit like he has? Will the Confortos and Nimmos of the world step forward? If they do - this could be a very strong club. They have not had the best luck through the years, though.

5. Miami - they, at least, are not going to win the division. (Watch them win 90 games!) No.

NL Central:
1. Chicago - I am not positive about this, but I am inclined, cautiously, to think that Bryant comes back, Rizzo picks his game up a bit, guys like Schwarber and Happ hit a bit more, Lester's decline remains gradual enough to not hurt them, Hamels, Hendricks and even Darvish do some good things - they should manage it, by default. They will get flogged in the playoffs, because they are old and slow and dull, but that's a ways away.

2. Milwaukee - I like the Brewers. They put together a strange team consisting entirely of third basemen, center fielders, first basemen and middle relievers - and Ryan Braun - but it worked last year. Not as easy this year, but they can still win. They might end up the season with Travis Shaw pitching to Braun behind the plate and Josh Hader at shortstop, but if it works, what the heck?

3. St. Louis - they have restocked - Goldschmidt, in particular - they have a strong roster, players everywhere. But it is a tough division, and a few injuries or young players regressing or not developing, and they could fade in a hurry. I'm inclined to think they will be in the middle of a free for all for both the division and the wild card spots, with most of the West and East. Every one of those teams is likely to win 87 games ands finish in a 8 way tie behind the Dodgers.

4. Pittsburg - they aren't exactly awful themselves, though they aren't likely to be in that pile up. I could see them falling apart before I see them contending - they don't have a lot of real pop, their pitching might fade - but they are more likely to be in a high 70s than 60s, I think.

5. Cincinatti - I see they have been getting some hype too - though I don't know. A cast off rotation, a bunch of half or unproven youngsters, Joey Votto's declining years - lots to go wrong there. Enough that could go right that they could be hanging around the edge of the playoff scrum, looking for a way in, but it's not likely.

NL West:
1. LA Dodgers - they didn't get any superstars off season, so they have the same deep, solid lineup that has been int he world series two years in a row - oh, they got Corey Seager back - a better addition than Manny Machado, I think. They are having trouble with their rotation - but they have a mob of good young arms hanging around waiting for a chance - they aren't going anywhere. I think they can still put daylight ahead of the rest fo the division.

2. Colorado - this is a fine team. Solid last year, still respectable. They'd developed pitching! they have to keep doing it, but it's been working the last couple years, so good luck to them! Arenado and Story are prime players, Blackmon is still very good, the rest fo the offense is likely. I don't think they are going to win enough to take down the Dodgers, but they will be in the thick of the playoff hunt. Might havd the advantage, playing in a division with a couple bad teams.

3. SD Padres - are they a good team or a bad team? They have been developing pitchers again. They have some neat looking hitters. They have Machado now. They should get around 80 wins, with the chance to do more - but it's no guarantee. Manny knows how to lose.

4. Arizona - Goldschmidt is gone, but they still have respectable pitchers around. Offense is not promising. They might hang around, high 70s, but they might serve mainly to give the Rockies enough in division wins to take the wild card honestly.

5. San Francisco - the dominant team of the decade has come a long way. They still have a lot fo the players they had on those world series teams - Bumgarner and Posey and Pablo Sandoval and - the red sox last year had 1 player active int he world series from their 2013 team. (They dropped a second - Brandon Workman - before the series.) Sometimes you have to move on.

And so - post season? predictions?
Boston
Cleveland
Houston
+NY
+Minnesota
- I will predict the Red Sox coming out and winning the world series, but Houston is dead even as far as I can see.

NL:
Philadelphia
Chicago
LA
+Colorado
+Washington
- That's a weak slate, so I am going completely off the grid and saying Washington. Who could be scary in the world series, if they could actually get that far.

AL MVP - Trout of course, or Mookie, with Judge, Ramirez, Bregman as wild cards.
NL MVP - let's take Bryant for a come back. With Seager, Harper and Acuna in the hunt.
AL ROokie - Vlad, why not?
NL MVP - Robles
AL Cy Young - there are lots of options here. I will say Kluber, partly because they might be forced to ride him harder than the Sox or Yankees or AStros have to ride their top guys.
NL Cy Young - it's Scherzer's to lose, though DeGrom and Syndegard and Nola could all win it.

World Champion Boston Red Sox!

Having posted twice on the World Series, might we well go for the trifecta. The Red Sox have won again, 4th since 2004, starting this century like they started the last one. This time, maybe they won't sell off Mookie Betts, Andrew Benintendi, Rafael Devers and company to finance a broadway show. It does look like this won't be the last time they hoist the silverware with this lot. It's interesting how much turnover there was between the previous squads - Papi was there for all three, and a bunch of of the 07 team - which had a good young core, like this one - were still around in 2013 (and might have been still around this year, if Pedroia were healthy or the team had resigned Jon Lester like everyone thought they should)... Otherwise, the only 2013 players active in both world series' were Xander Bogearts and Joe Kelly - though he was on the other side then. Workman was around for most of the post-season of both, but not the world series. Jackie Bradley was around the 2013 team, though not in the post-season. But this team - Betts and Benny and Xander and Raffy are all young; Vazquez as well (and he reminded people in the series why he's going to be a premier catcher in the league), Bradley isn't old; JD Martinez can DH for a few years yet. The pitching is all about 30. They can ride that core for a while. They'll have to pay them sooner or later, but they are rich - they ought to find some better young talent to replace the older guys, but that's a problem for the future. This team has a couple more runs it in without major changes - though so do the Yankees, Astros, Dodgers, maybe even the Cubs, never mind if the Indians decide to spend, or the Braves and Phillies and such can keep moving in the right direction. Anyway...

The last couple games were vintage 2018 Red Sox. Game 4 looked scary for a while - great pitching duel that blew up when Vazquez threw a double play ball away, and Puig lost one - but that's not the end of the story. The Sox looked drained by those 18 innings, but so were the Dodgers - and the Sox held all their bullpen guys to an inning each, while a lot of the Dodgers worked a couple. And so Baez and Urias, who'd been the best the Dodgers had had to that point, weren't around at the end of game 4, and it showed. Homers and then cue shot doubles and line drive singles and hustling to beat out a double play and squibs in the infield set up Steve Pearce to gap them, Bogie to get a big hit. The Sox meanwhile had Barnes and Kelly in the pen - and Kimbrel, who made a 5 run lead look all too inadequate - he might have hit his wall, since he'd been very good in the world series.

And game 5 was a perfect masterpiece: Pearce goes bridge in the first, and after Price started the game with a bad pitch, he didn't give them much else. Maybe next year, the Sox should use Price on 3 days rest all year, and let him close between starts - why not? He went 7+ and looked like he could have found a way to the end, and started game 6 as well. He dumped his reputation as a choke artist in the post season, but it's notable that he had always been effective out of the pen in the post-season - for Tampa, for Toronto, for Boston, last year. I always thought, why not accept it? move him to the pen outright, let him pitch 2 innings every day - he seems to thrive on it. Cora said something like that - he wants to be involved in every game - maybe he should be their closer. Though would be be better than Sale? who, in fact, did close it out, as dominatingly as you could ask. Struck out the side - Manny Machado (favored enemy of Sox fans everywhere), down on his knees waving helplessly at a slider. Yes.

And there it was. This post-season looked more tense than it was - it felt like the Dodgers, Astros, even the Yankees, were making the Sox work - but they ended up winning 3-1, 4-1, 4-1, dominating a bunch of those games, with even the nail biters being the work of uncertain relievers (Kimbrel), who still always got the last out. For all the appearance of angst, there was almost never any real drama. I suppose overcoming a 0-4 deficit in the last three innings of game 4 counts - but compared to the 04 or 07 championship comebacks, or the Big Papi grand slam against Detroit in 2013, it was just a nice comeback. That 18 inning game made this series epic - and game 4 was a good one too, though once the Sox started hitting they didn't stop, especially against the second rank of Dodgers relievers... but the 2013 series felt more competitive - you could imagine that team losing. This one - hard to picture, though it was easy to forget it. From day one - they had a nice lead over Tampa, and Joe Kelly gave it all away - then they didn't lose for a month. They could start to look ready to fade, and they'd run off 6 in a row. Mookie would go 0-14 or something, and you'd think - shit, he's choking! - And he'd hit a home run to break a game open. It was a thing to see.

And finally - how gratifying is it to see a game turn on a great starting pitcher? Price in game 5 - though this came after Hill in 4 (and E Rod until the defense and Cora messed up), Buehler, Price in game 2 - Eovaldi at the end of game 3... Granted we got the usual second guessing, including someone at the white house using Trump's account to weigh in on taking out Hill. Yes, the bullpen promptly failed - but if Roberts had left Hill in and he got tagged - what then? It's doubly ironic because Cora made exactly the opposite decision with E Rod in the 6th, with exactly the same results - 3 run bomb! Cora handled his pitchers brilliantly, I think; Roberts stayed closer to the script - though in a way they were both playing the rosters they had. The Dodgers had bullpen depth; the Sox had half a good bullpen, and a bunch of starts with rubber arms and the willingness to use them. The Sox guys did their jobs; the Dodgers did in a couple games, and didn't in the others. And the Sox starters kept them in every single game, better than LA's. So there you have it.

World Series Madness

Ah, baseball. I stayed up last night to watch every minute of that stupid baseball game - it was - well, literally: the most epic world series game ever. Longest in time, longest in innings, most players - 18 innings, 7 plus hours, 46 of 50 players, 18 pitchers (plus Kershaw, pinch hitting - almost forgot that) - and bookended by two of the best pitching performances of the post-season - Buehler dominant to start; Eovaldi dominant out of the pen, his third straight game, going 6 plus, 97 pitches, and losing on a home run by Max Muncy who, shall we say, also had a game for the ages, in the form of a home run, a walk and a hustle extra base. The whole thing was a mind blower - but that 13th inning:

There are lots of extra inning games in baseball - the monsters, 16, 17, 18 innings don't come along often, but you get a couple every year, maybe one fo them really ridiculous. All that gets exaggerated in the post-season, where 10 or 11 innings can feel like you've been playing for a month - rather shocking to note that before this, 14 was the most innings anyone had played in the series (Sox and Dodgers, in their Robins guise, a complete game by the greatest baseball player of all time, completed in a bit over 2 hours.) This on was, in a lot of ways, just another long night where no one could hit and everyone swung for the fences on every pitch after the 12th or so - except for that 13th.

Sox up - Holt walks, goes to steal, the ball rattles around the batters box and the catcher upends Eduardo Nunez. Nunez writhes around - can he walk? it mattered, by then, because the Sox had emptied the bench - Vazquez was playing first; Pomeranz and Sale were all that remained on the bench. He shook it off - he took a swing - a dribbler toward the pitcher. He ran (so to speak) down the line and dove into first - ahead fo the throw, which went wide - Holt came in to score! 2-1 Sox - but Nunez was on the ground, more writhing... but he made it up - went to the dugout for celebration and managed to head butt poor Rick Porcello... Okay: back on the field. The sox got runners to second and third, two outs, Mookie up - walk, Xander up - failure! (A theme...) Bottom of the inning, Eovaldi (unhittable through the post season as a starter and reliever and for a couple innings already this night.) So: he walked Muncy to lead off the inning - rare, but just one baserunner, etc. Machado pops out. Then Bellinger up, did what most fo the hitters did in the second game they played last night - swung for the downs, late, popped it up, in this case on the third base side foul. Nunez was playing almost straight up the middle -0 ran all the way over, caught the ball and flipped into the stands, all Derek Jeter like.

And Muncy saw and scampered on to second.

What the sox did to score in the top of the inning felt like something out of an LA nightmare; but it wasn't just LA's nightmare. The baseball gods, or whatever malignant force rules these games, was not going to make it that easy. Puig hit a sharp grounder toward the middle, but easily gathered byu Ian Kinsler, multiple gold glove winner, who grabbed it went to turn, and the earth moved under his feet, he slipped - just a bit - and threw the ball past Vazquez, letting Muncy in to tie the game.

Games like this, with my team up 2-0, I can usually let go. it gets past midnight, past 1, and you say, all right, they're either going to lose it (which I was resigned to before JBJ went yard), or they win it, either way, there's a bunch more games to watch, and I can read about this one in the morning. And I was close, there in the 11th or 12th - but I hung around, mostly because of how good Eovaldi has been this year - and thought I was going to be rewarded. I was not. Instead - after that 13th, how can you not do them the service of watching them finish it? 5 more innings! or, really, 4 1/2 and a batter - but hell's bells. That inning changed it from being a tense, scary long post season nail biter into something surreal, something almost inconceivable. I didn't really know what I was watching after that, didn't know how it could end - because at that point, anything that happened was going to feel like Fate - but couldn't stop. Mind blowing.

So they do it again this evening. Drew Pomeranz might well get the start - pretty terrifying stuff. Maybe they push up Sale - maybe Eduardo Rodriguez gets a shot at Eovaldi/Price style heroism. Hell, maybe Price gets in there. Maybe they figure if the Babe can go 14, so can Eovaldi, and put him back out there for 7 more. I don't know. I have seen lots of second guessing of Cora for this game, much of it for the pitching - but he didn't really do anything strange with the pitching. He did what he has done all along - expect all his relievers to pitch every single day; NOT expect them to go more than an inning (other than Kimbrel, though only when he can save it) - which meant he was down to three pitchers by the 12th, including Eovaldi - who was, after all, supposed to start today. So he got in his start in the morning instead fo this evening. Even losing, Eovaldi's contribution was immense - he gave them every chance to win; he saved those last two pitchers for this evening. And the fact is - everyone else is still going to be around tonight. Eovaldi and Porcello are probably the only guys off limits tonight. In the end, both teams used up their pens - the Sox pen might be fresher, after all of that, thanks to Eovaldi. I have no problem with Cora's use of his pitchers, and Eovaldi - that's a guy making himself very very rich, this October, assuming he still has an arm attached when it's over.

I'm not so thrilled with Cora's lineup handling. He managed to maneuver himself into a spring training split squad lineup at the end, no one on the bench, two non-hitting catchers (who both got on base a couple times, so - that might not be the problem) in the lineup, Eduardo Nunez taking more abuse than a football player - tipped over int he batting box, diving into first, tumbling into the stands, tripping over the pitching mound - though through it all - getting the outs, getting the hit, just, somehow keeping the game going, and getting up and doing it again... Cora managed to leave Benentendi out of most of the game, then lose both him and JD Martinez, and both hitting first basemen, and - a lot of it, without really getting anything out of the change. Sure, the specifics matter, but as a manager, if you have the weapons he has, you have to have a decent team on the field in the end. You have to find a way to keep Benny or Martinez in that game - you have to. For all the talk about Mookie at second, they didn't do that - they put Vazquez at first, and Holt in left. That is not how you do it. Robert beat him up and down the field at this part of the game - the Dodgers had Turner, Machado, Muncy, Bellinger and Puig in there at the end - that's a lot of pop left in the lineup, and sooner or later one of them is going to connect.

It was a strange one. Down to this: the reason the Red Sox lost, in the end, is that none of those offensive powerhouses did a goddamned thing. Betts and Bogaerts did nothing. JD did nothing, Moreland did nothing, the pinch hitters did nothing. It was more telling because Leon, and Vazquez and Nunez and JBJ were on base - generated all the offense and gave them more chances besides. Strange game.

And tonight? the Sox may not have a starter, but the pen is relatively fresh; they got nothing out of their stars, but - how often do those guys disappear for two games in a row? It took 18 innings, the best start of the post-season, a magisterial bullpen performance, a couple fantastic defensive plays, their own best players taking the night off, a gold glover slipping on a relatively easy grounder, their OWN best defensive play of the night advancing the tying run to scoring position, to lose last night - so - I can take comfort. Sox is 6 still looks like a good bet.

World Series

A month and a half after my last post - does anyone know I am still alive? it doesn't matter.

The Red Sox are in the World Series! Could I say this was inevitable? Obviously not - but I am not going to pretend I am surprised. I predicted winning the east, and got it right: the Yankees got a lot better this year - the Red Sox, already a better team, got even more better. (There's some grammatical ugliness for you, but quite possibly correct. It reminds me that among Mookie Bette' accomplishments this year, he managed, during an interview in a raucous clubhouse after winning the ALCS, to to use a double negative correctly: "look at our regular season - we are not here for no reason" - more or less. Baseball, bowling, rubik's cubes, grammar - what can't he do?) I thought the Astros would get past them in the series, but only on paper - that's how it worked. The Indians didn't show up in the post season, the other three teams really did, even if the Sox smoked the Yankees a couple times. A hit here, a passed ball there, a couple fewer highlight real catches, and we could have last year's world series again. Or even a repeat of the late 70s! So - that was close. BUt the team that found a way to 108 wins in the regular season, found a way past the teams that could only muster 100 and 103.

And so it's Sox Dodgers, which apparently happened in 1916, back when the LA Dodgers were the Brooklyn Robins. The Red Sox won that one - odds are pretty good they'll win this one. They have questions - is Sale healthy? will Price revert to post-season form, or continue whatever changed last time out? Will Porcello be dominant or throw a home run derby? Eovaldi, of all people, is the only starter who seems completely trustworthy. But at the same time - all four of them could be brilliant. Healthy Sale is dominant; Price - whatever he did last time worked - Porcello can get people out, and gives them an extra bat in the NL park - so....

They are a fun team to watch. They catch the ball, better than any Red Sox team I remember. They have superstars and regular stars, and the whole lineup can rise up at any given moment and hurt you. They grind out everything, they run, they slap hit, slug, hit doubles - it's a good team.

The Dodgers? Well - led the NL in runs scored and ERA - I guess they are doing something right. They underperformed during the year, but got there (in 163 games) and outlasted the Brewers in the playoffs. They have a ton of power, they have premier starters, they have a decent bullpen - they will be dangerous. It should be a tense series - though the Red Sox have been able to put teams down like rabid dogs more than once this year.

Which adds up to what? Sox in 6? and some late nights over the next couple weeks for poor east coast me.

Baseball (Ken Burns, or maybe all of it)

Cross posted from Wonders in the Dark.



By Stephen Mullen

(1)
When I was growing up, in the 1970s in Maine, baseball on television meant NBC's game of the week, ABC's Monday Night Baseball, and maybe a Red Sox game a week. That plus Mel Allen's This Week in Baseball, and whatever info turned up on the news. Baseball was a radio sport - that's where I followed it. The Sox were on every single night, Ned Martin's voice was part of the family. I followed the game on the radio and through magazines and box scores, and I followed it intensely. But all that completely changed by the end of the 1980s. Cable TV changed everything about baseball - changed all sports, probably, except football, which was always a television sport, with its weekly games and predictable schedule. In 1980, cable was a luxury - I don't remember anyone who had it,or very few; by 1990, everyone had cable TV. And by 1990, baseball had moved to cable. All the Red Sox games were on NESN by then, and cable brought all kinds of baseball to my TV - I could get the Braves and the Mets; other towns, other packages around New England could get you the Yankees and Cubs as well. And ESPN showed games every day, and covered baseball intensely - Sports Center; Baseball Tonight - we were soaked in baseball. Back in the 1970s, I could see about 3 games a week; in 1990, I could watch every single game from three different teams, plus a couple other games every single night. This has only grown since. You might have to pay more to get all the games - but you can get all the games, from all the teams,all of it at the same high production level. Even with basic cable, you get 2-3 games a day, and more on the weekends. We are soaked in baseball on TV.

(2)
One of the stranger aspects of Ken Burns' Baseball series, from 1994, is that it doesn't talk about this change. The 9th Inning episode covers 20 very eventful years of baseball - free agency and all that brought to the game, drugs (coke, particularly), Pete Rose, as well as all the on field events of the era. The great world series' - Brooks Robinson beating the Reds in1970, the Red Sox and Reds in 1975, Sox and Mets in 86, Twins and Braves in 1991; Clemente's last games; the 1989 earthquake; Kirk Gibson vs. the Eck. But there's very little about television, about cable TV's transformation of what baseball on TV was. (And its transformation of baseball itself.) It is a huge omission - take that 1991 world series, one of the best of all time, with its two last to first teams - how do you do justice to it without acknowledging that one of the teams was essentially a national team? TBS brought the Braves to everyone - they deliberately claimed that they were baseball's version of the Dallas Cowboys - America's team. I admit to being part of it - I picked up on the Braves when they were in last place, because even before they started winning, they were loaded with young players who were going to make something of themselves. I could watch slow, mediocre, white, Boston win 88 games a year and nip or be nipped by the sightly less bland (but Clemens-less) Blue Jays at the wire - or I could watch Ron Gant and Otis Nixon, watch Tom Glavine and John Smoltz develop into stars, watch Steve Avery and Derek Lilliquist come up and maybe become stars, wonder when Justice and Lopez and the rest were going to make it - they were fun to watch. And I could see them, every game if I wanted; I could follow them as closely as I could follow the Red Sox.

(3)
I have a confession: when I saw this assignment, I thought it was about baseball on television, not about the Burns series. I thought, this is very cool, really - why shouldn't "baseball" be a topic? or any sport, or even just, "sports" - that is a massive part of what television is. And you might as well take it whole - you can't make a really clean division, to pick one show - "The 1986 World Series" say - it doesn't work like that. But baseball on TV? or football, or sports - things like that should be considered in this countdown. Sports - the 7 o'clock news - even whole channels, like CNN - are integral to what TV is. TV is as much the medium as the content, and the content itself is often spread out like this - types of shows, that fill up the hours. And many of them, filling the hours with as much excitement and drama as any actual shows. The advertisers know it, NESN hypes the Red Sox by comparing them to Game of Thrones and the like - why not? We've had a few entries like this, game shows and the like, but why shouldn't baseball be one of them?

(4)
Personally, I love baseball on TV. It allows you to engage at whatever level you want. You can leave it in the background, dip into it when something happens, let it drift when nothing's going on; or you can hang on every pitch, on all the stuff between the pitches (the decisions about pitches, the psychological battles between pitcher/catcher and hitters, and so on). You can go back and forth between these approaches; you can supplement what's on TV - fire up baseball reference and look up just how good Mike Trout is this year. Compared to other sports, baseball suits me more - hockey has more consistent excitement and action; basketball has spurts of spectacular action, but a lot of standing around, that doesn't quite have the drama of a baseball game; I am no fan of football, though it is probably the quintessential television sport - with everyone in the country (who cares about it) watching the same thing at the same time every week), with well defined self-contained plays, everything happening in an orderly manner. (Violence and committee meetings, as George Will described it.) I understand its appeal, though I don't share it. I like the fact that baseball is diffuse - that all those games going on every day means that all the people around the country watching baseball are watching something different; I like that you can engage with it on so many different levels; I like that the pace of it leaves so much time for consideration - looking up stats; telling stories; speculating about strategy; comparing players to one another, to all the long history of the past - it's like that. It is intellectually stimulating because it lets you bring whatever you want to it - it stimulates your imagination, your curiosity, it leads you down a dozen pathways. I like that.

(5)
That, I suppose, is one of the things Ken Burns does best: he gets at the endless digressiveness of baseball. He likes to meander in his documentaries, takes his time, dwells on stories and images, sometimes on analysis, sometimes just on contemplation or reflection - all of his shows have some of the ordered digressiveness of baseball. And Baseball is a fine series: beautiful, informative, deep and broad, with well chosen and organized imagery, itself lovely and fascinating. His talking heads? well - I think the world could do without another chance for George Will and Bob Costas to bloviate on camera - but then you get someone like John Sayle, Curt Flood (who's magnificent, really), or the inimitable Bill Lee - well, I can forgive... Still - for all their good qualities, I sometimes find Burns' documentaries a bit frustrating - there sometimes seems to be less than meets the eye. Or I should say - the more I know about the subject of the show, the less satisfying they can be. Both The Civil War and Baseball have this quality. Those are subjects I know about - longstanding enthusiasms. I've been obsessed with the Civil War for most of my life; and I have always been absorbed in baseball. I spent many hours in my youth poring over old baseball magazines, reading and rereading baseball histories, talking about it to anyone who cared, all my life; I have spent many more hours in my dotage rooting through any piece of information I can find about the sport - online, books, and so on. And always living on stats, as baseball fans do, from the Baseball Digests and annual guides (what a surprise it was to learn that Bill Mazerowski was a ball player and not just a guy who put out a yearly baseball preview!) that came out in the 70s, to Baseball Weekly and USA Today's stat pages in the 90s, to Baseball Reference and ESPN and MLB online now. So I have heard the big stories he tells - I know most of the historical developments of baseball - I know some developments in the game better than he covers them. I sometimes feel as though his shows are a kind of preaching to the choir - he repeats the stories baseball fans know, Snodgrass' muff, and Babe's called shot; what a prick Ty Cobb was and what a gentleman Christy Mathewson was; Jackie Robinson's arrival, the Miracle Mets, the '75 series and Fisk's home run, and so on - repeating them as much to spark a kind of sentimental recognition as to teach you anything. They have a self-congratulation to them, which, admittedly, is what we baseball fans do all the time anyway! Sit around and remember the touchstones of watching baseball - but I don't need Ken Burns to do that. The truth is, my favorite Burns series is probably the Vietnam series from last year - that's a subject I know in the outline, but not in the particulars - I could follow along, but I didn't know more than he was telling me, and it felt like I was learning something. I learned plenty from Baseball, or the Civil War - but not the same. And not as much as I already knew.

(6)
But saying that, it points to the best things about Baseball - when it talks about things I don't know. The Shadow Ball episode, mainly about the Negro Leagues, is the strongest example. It's a subject I know something about, but nowhere near enough. Burns covers it in some depth - and it is fascinating. I learned something - I didn't know most of it; I knew some names (Satchel Paige and Cool Papa Bell and Josh Gibson and so on), some team information (I even have a Cuban X Giants hat), but nothing about the history of the leagues, their development, their progression. I do now. That is a great episode, for this reason, as well as just because of the fine collection of footage and photographs he has.

(7)
Burns is very good on covering the social aspects of the game. The roots of its racism, the sociology of the players, the various shifts in the demographics of its fans. He's good on the labor issues, giving them attention, tracing their evolution (though it's a miserable story to tell, almost as miserable as the game's racism, given the corruption of the owners through the first half of the 20th century and beyond). These pieces are good, though often short - his treatment of the media's role in baseball is often very good as well, though even briefer, frustratingly so. There are bits about radio and Red Barber; lots of quotes from sportswriters, and allusions to them; some discussion of television - but shouldn't there be more? And that last episode missed the ball badly - cable television is a huge change, for all the reasons I've said. It's a change that was more noticeable in baseball than in other sports - daily games saturates you with games; and that saturation was on radio in the 70s; it is on TV now. He touches on this in earlier periods - on the ways technology spread the games in the old days - newspapers printing partial scores in multiple editions; the scoreboards at newspaper offices, updated from the telegraph wires - you could follow games in lose to real time in the 1920s, just like now - though you might have had to leave the house. That happened on television in the 80s - he ignored it.

(8)
It's interesting to think about baseball as television. I've posted about this before, way back when, on the 20th anniversary of Roger Clemens' first 20 strikeout game. That's 12 years back now - how much has coverage changed since 2006? less than it had changed since 1986, I think. Most of the trends in 2006 are still going strong - lots of crowd shots, dugout shots, sideline reporters, closer shots of players. High definition has changed how baseball looks on TV as well. I think has reined in some of the more annoying features of the game on TV - the camera work is less frenetic and annoying now; the images are so good, with contemporary technology, that you don't need gimmicks to try to catch something interesting. You don't miss much with a plain shot of the field, so why keep moving the camera and zooming around? These days, of course, the screens are full of stuff - K-zones, stats and numbers and info everywhere on the screen, constant crawls under the picture, graphics to show movement of players (red and blue circles to show shifts, or a players' route to a fly ball, or what have you). Stats are ubiquitous, all kinds of stats. As are advertisements - no chance to sell something is neglected. The game on the field has changed a bit - there are some new rules, mostly about who you can tackle, that mostly just try to keep catchers and second basemen out of the hospital; the big on field difference is replay, which, of course, relies integrally on television. (It is also one of the best innovations in the game: replay has almost ended the classic argument with the umpire - and good riddance! Earl Weaver or Billy Martin made for great theater,buut you see one argument, and you don't need to see any more. If you can resolve questions honestly, why shouldn't you? I like replay!) But as Burns might say - for all the changes, the game is recognizably the same. There are even more stats in the game now than ever - different stats - both the measures of the players results (emphasis on on base and slugging over batting averages; emphasis on WHIP - walks and hits per inning pitched, for pitchers), and things like exit velocity, launch angles, barreling percentages. But for all that, all those new stats - you can still compare them to the old time stats and get a pretty good idea of what was happening then and now. Sure, it's good to know how often Mookie Betts gets the barrel of the bat on the ball - but you don't really have to see that stat to guess what that stat is going to be. For players I see a lot - the Red Sox, the Yankees - I don't need someone to tel me what their exit velocities are, r their barreling percentages are. You don't need to hear the exit velocity Aaron Judge or Gary Sanchez get when you can see what happens when they get a good swing on a ball. And honestly, for players I don't see as much - Mike Trout say - I can guess what kind of bat speed and how often he gets the barrel on the ball just by looking at those 23 homers, .328 average, .688 slugging percentage. I can hazard a guess what kind of exit velocities Babe Ruth and Hank Aaron got, from the stats they put up - and definitely from watching them swing.

(9)
In the end, though, that is what is best about living in today's TV environment - with all those games on TV, you can see anyone fairly regularly. Back in the 70s, when there were tow or three games a week on - you got to see lots of the Yankees and Dodger and Reds, Red Sox and Orioles, Phillies maybe - but good luck seeing Andre Dawson or young Jack Clark. The only way you could see them was if they turned up on This Week in Baseball.

The Real Beginning of Spring

Sure it's been a snowy March, but spring comes early this year - today! March 29! Opening Day! All is well.

Let's just get to it, shall we?

American League East

1. Boston Red Sox - yeah, yeah, I know everyone is anointing the Yankees already - that is a very strange. It's true they have rather awesome power in that lineup, and good players throughout, and a decent starting rotation - but they are going against a team that beat them last year, sometime, it seems, with one hand tied behind their back. The Sox have been half dismissed, but for what? for winning 93 games with a third of a year from David Price? Porcello reverting to Bad Porcello? And most of their offense regressing significantly from the year before? Betts, Bogaerts, Ramirez, Bradley, Pedroia - all dropped significantly (or missed a bunch of time) - you have to expect some reversion to the mean, and now you have JD Martinez and Devers for a whole year and the continued progress of Andrew Benintendi? Compare the down years for the Sox to the number of Yankees coming off career years, and it starts to look good in the Fens... And almost all of the players on the field for the Sox will be defensive contributors (maybe not Devers or Hanley when he's out there, but the rest, including one of the best defensive outfields int he game), not something I'd say for the Yanks. With Sale and Price both looking healthy and happy? adding Stanton got the Yankees to the Sox level last year: how are they not still playing catchup?

2. New York Yankees - yeah yeah; if the shaky parts of the pitching stay healthy and effective, the good parts of the pitching get better - yeah, they're going to be good. On the other hand - can Stanton stay healthy? is Judge the real thing (I suspect so, but still...)? who gets displaced when they have to move Gary Sanchez? (He is one hell of a hitter, but his work behind the plate is not what I would recommend.) None of that is likely to hurt them that much, though - even the pitching, it's what Severino, Gray and Montgomery do that will decide it the most, and they are as likely to be good as not. If both teams show up and stay healthy, it promises a good race.

3. Toronto Blue Jays - I don't have any reason to think they will be even respectable, but why not? I like the Blue Jays. They have some pitchers who could come back - Sanchez, Estrada, Stroman - still have Donaldson - they could be respectable. Probably not playoff respectable, which might be the worst possible result in this day and age - everyone wants to contend for the post-season or bottom out and rebuild, and they are hanging in the middle.

4. Baltimore Orioles - another team in the middle. Bland to ineffective pitching, lots of power, but most of it in decline - they could cause trouble, they could wash out. They could win 83 games and be forgotten, unless they beat the sox or Yankees 3 out of 4 in some September series.

5. Tampa Bay Rays - they've had the weird ability to hang around through years of decay, but that can't last forever. Whither Chris Archer? I keep expecting them to disappear - this is probably when it happens.

AL Central:

1. Cleveland Indians - they have taken over the old role of the Rays, the cheapskates who thrive by developing and acquiring the best players, surrounding them with solid support, and having a management team that runs it all at peak efficiency. They have the luxury of doing it in the central, with no Big Teams around to buy their way into contention - so they should be able to keep inhabiting the post-season for a while to come.

2. Minnesota Twins - they've been on a yo yo the last three years, contending, putrifying, getting to the post-season, but they have a nice young squad, that ought to hang around contention. The AL is wildly stratified, and very thin in the middle - the Twins are in there and should be in a position to contend for the wild card again. If the Indians have some injuries, they might chase the division, as well.

3. Kansas City Royals - they aren't very good, but they have some hitters and if they get any pitching, they might make it to .500 or so. Or not. Probably not.

4. Detroit Tigers - they were awful last year. Time has caught up to Victor Martinez and Miguel Cabrera, and no one else is better than a good squad player. I cant see them getting past the 70s in wins - more likely to lose 90 than win 80 I think.

5. Chicago White Sox - got some ball players, and young guys coming through, and maybe sometime they might get good again. Now, they have James Shields as their top starter.

AL West:

1. Houston Astros - one of those mortal locks who are all set up for an epic fall. Though it's hard to see happening. t's true - Keuchel and McCullers could be hurt again; Verlander might find a calendar; Gerritt Cole might go the way of many NL hurlers coming to the AL before him - they'll still score tons of runs and - would need to lose about 4 guys to not be in contention. Altuve, Correa, Bregman, Springer are studs; Reddick and Gonzalez and the catchers and Gurriel are all solid pros - they are too good. A bad year in 91 wins and the wild card. That kind of stuff happens - look at the Cubs last year - but that's usually the result: 91 wins instead of 108.

2. Los Angeles Angels - (is that what they call themselves these days?). Pitching is thin on the ground out there,but they have some offense - on paper anyway. They were horrible last year... But Trout, Upton, Simmons,Kinsler, etc - there's hope. The west is odd this year - I don't know what to make of any of them, except the Astros - they all look like they could get into the wild card race if things went well; there could be three 90 loss teams if things don't go well. Who knows.

3. Seattle Mariners - I should just keep picking Seattle to win every year until they do. How could they win this year? King Felix does what Verlander did the last couple years? gets healthy, rethinks his approach, and finds his old form - why not? he's 31 - he wouldn't be the first pitcher to have a sag in the middle of his career, and come back. That and good offensive years from their real talent - Cruz and Cano and Seager and Segura and Gordon - why not? It would take many acts of god to get them past the Astros, but they could get the second wild card spot easy enough.

4. Texas Rangers - if they could occasionally hit a ball fair in inside the park, they might do all right. Power abounds; baserunners are in short supply. The pitching is shaky, but not impossible - Hamels and Fister and so on - they are another team that, a couple things go right, they're fighting for the second wild card spot. (The first one is going to be up to Boston/New York to lose, I think.)

5. Oakland A's - they were shockingly not horrible last year. They could be shockingly not horrible this year. Better than that might be s stretch, but it's something.

National League East:

1. Washington Nationals - they are gifted with a very weak division. They have a very good team. It's hard to see them not taking the division, if they stay healthy. Maybe they'll win a playoff series one of these years! It's been a good millennium for breaking droughts - California, Boston, Chicago and Chicago, Houston all won their first, or their first in a Hell of a Long Time - why not the Expos?

2. New York Mets - they have some ballplayers out there; they have real pitching, if it stays on the field. They have been very snake bit lately - will that continue? Probably. They make their own bad luck.

3.Philadelphia Phillies - are they in fact good enough to get in the race for something? Who knows, but points for ambition! They have been working some starting pitchers toward effectiveness; they have some interesting young position players - now they add Arrieta and Santana - an interesting strategy, to bolster a young roster with a couple veterans, who don't have to carry the team, but can guide it to competence - why not? Root for them anyway.

4. Atlanta Braves - I have to keep writing something about all these teams? I want to know what's the big deal with Ronald Acuna - the rest? At least they aren't the Marlins.

5. Miami Marlins - It's easy to mock and abuse,and trash Derek Jeter for continuing to work for the Yankees, but - I don't know. How many times has this team been sold off? I'll give Jeter and company a few years to see if they keep up the old patterns or if they're willing to work to build a team and keep it when they do - right now, enjoy those 100 losses, boys.

NL Central:

1. Chicago Cubs - this might be the tightest, most open division in baseball. Cubs are loaded, to be sure, but the pitching staff, though superb on paper, shows signs of being made of paper... Maybe. They should get all they can out of what they have, and they have plenty, so they are not going to be out of contention for anything. But they have competition in this division, and it could be interesting again.

2. St. Louis Cardinals - this is not a bad looking team, not with Marcel Ozuna in the outfield, not if the pitching stays healthy. They probably need some breaks to beat the Cubs, but they should be in the hunt for the post season.

3. Milwaukee Brewers - an interesting team, with more outfielders and first basemen than they have places to play them. They could be very good - pitching, of course, is the question. It usually is, for everyone. They should score runs, but they probably don't have the margin of error that the Cubs and Cards have.

4. Cincinatti Reds - they were bad last year, worse than the bad Pirates, but they haven't gutted their roster in the offseason, so I'd guess they switch places with the Buccos. There are some nice young players hanging around here - they might get somewhere in the vicinity of respectability one of these years, though it might be a stretch this year.

5. Pittsburgh Pirates - goodbye to Gerritt Cole and Andrew McCutcheon and probably more to come. They do have some talent hanging around - it will be interesting to see if people like Taillon can pick up their games. They may linger in the 70s, though I think it's more likely they sell off the remaining talent - Bell and Harrison and Marte could be laboring for contenders come August...

NL West:

1. Los Angeles Dodgers - any reason to pick against them? Kershaw has been physically vulnerable; Rich Hill is a young Jamie Moyer - they might end up having pitching problems, of all things. The team on the field looks good and deep, though probably not Houston/Cubs quality. But they should win well into the 90s, and be in the post-season.

2. Arizona Diamondbacks - they lost JD Martinez, but they were decent without him; a full year of AJ Pollack might cover most of that - otherwise - there's a lot to like. Pitching, hitting - it's a good team. If the Dodgers have health problems, the snakes could take a run at the division. Even without it, I'd guess they will be in the wild card hunt.

3. Colorado Rockies - a playoff team, mostly because they found a bunch of effective starters somehow. They've piled up the relievers - they still have some prime offensive players - they should be good. I don't think they're likely to challenge for the division, but they are a strong playoff contender.

4. San Francisco Giants - the best team of the 2010s has started ot come apart - can they come back together? Bringing in again stars like Longoria and McCutcheon might not be the most promising means to that end but they're better than anything they had before. They were looking like an interesting dark horse for a while, but them Bumgarner broke his finger and Samardzija hurt himself as well - that's 2 months plus without the one, and a month without the other - that's plenty of time to get 10+ games down on the Dodgers and 6-7 on the other two teams and maybe even a couple down on the Pads....

5. San Diego Padres - there's some talent out there, much of it young, plus a couple nice veterans to stabilize the team - if only they had some ready starters. They seem like a team likely to be getting better through the next few years, but not a team likely to play past September for a while yet. Or even get out of the basement (though Giants' injuries could help there, like they did last year.)

So to add it all up?

AL Post season? Sox - Indians - Astros + Yankees and Twins (same as last year.) Any of the big four could get through,but theAstros are the one team with a clear edge - they look like the best team in baseball by a clear distance. Like the Cubs last year! ha ha ha. Right. Best dark horse? Seattle.

NL Postseason: Nats - Cubs - Dodgers (boring, huh?) + Arizona and St Louis. The rest is a better fight - any of those teams could get through, and none of them seem like strong favorites now. Dodgers have Kershaw, who can swing things; but dominant starters aren't the world beaters they used to be. I'd guess, now? Cubbies get back. Lost to the Astros, or whoever else comes from the AL. Best dark horse? Philly - that's a huge stretch, but hey,it would be fun!

Awards: AL MVP - as always, Trout's to lose. A good collection of runner up candidates, if something weird happens - Altuve and Correa, Betts, Judge, Stanton, Lindor and Ramirez, Machado - but Trout has to miss two months to give them a shot.
Cy Young: Kluber is always a good bet. Sale, Verlander, etc. are real contenders. Maybe David Price bounces back.
Rookie: Willie Calhoun, in Texas, looks like he has a major league job now (of the big prospects) - could be. I'm not as up on these as I could be (or as I am on the NL rookies, for some reason.)
NL:
MVP = I'd have to say Harper is the favorite; he's less consistent than Trout (though usually very good), and there's less separation between him and the other stars- so Bryant or Rizzo, Bellinger, Seager, Goldschmidt, Votto, Blackmun, Arenado, Ozuna, maybe even some out of nowhere types like AJ Pollack or the ghost of some forgotten giant (Posey or McCutcheon or Longoria) might win. Bryant and Seager probably have the inside track,along with Harper, though.
Cy Young: Kershaw if he is healthy, Scherzer if Kershaw misses some time, Strasburg or someone weird if both of them slip. Various Mets, say. But there's a gap there.
Rookie: from the sound of it, once he's done enough time in the minors to stretch out arbitration for a year, Ronald Acuna is ready and raring to go. Sounds good to me.

That's it then. Play Ball!