don't you think that timely homers can change the momentum? Look at the Dave Henderson shot against Donnie Moore in the '86 ALCS.

I just don't think there's really any such thing as momentum in any real sense in baseball. I mean, yeah, sometimes after a big home run, the team goes on to win. And sometimes it goes on to lose. So momentum is this big meaningful thing -- except when it's not. I think the reason big home runs like that seem to lead to wins is because they put the team that hits them ahead. And teams that are ahead tend to win. I'm not at all convinced there's anything to the theory that that winning team is then more likely to win the next game, or the series.

And anyway, as I understand the Simmons theory, he's saying the team that gives up a home run like the one Pujols hit has no chance. I'm too lazy to go read the column, but that's how it was presented below. If that's what he said, it's nonsense.

And as for the Dave Henderson shot, well, if that was such a huge momentum swing, how do you explain the Angels tying the game in the bottom of that same inning? Sure, the Sox went on to win the game in extra innings, but they had a roughly 50-50 shot to do so once the ninth ended. They had to overcome longer odds to win the next two in a row also, but not overwhelming odds. It's not like teams down 3-2 with two home games coming up rarely win.

The messed-up links are being fixed.

If you don't want to go back to the story, the links were to and

I guess html doesn't work in the letters form. Boo.

Trying again: The McCarver links are being or have been fixed. I can't link to them here but they were:

http://www.shutuptimmccarver.com/links.htm

and

http://bobfinnan.com/TimMcCarver/

I don't like to talk about people's looks in public unless I have something really nice to say. But I just want to say to the person down thread who referred to Zelasko as "pretty" that I envy you your standards.

Wouldn't the Astros-Cardinals series be more entertaining if we got to hear Larry Dierker or Al Hrabosky on the broadcasts?

Well, yes and ... ABSOLUTELY NO!!!

NBC used to bring a local announcer into the booth as a third guy during World Series games, but only for an inning, or even a half inning. Maybe one guy from each team for a half inning each. I forget exactly. I used to think that was cool. This was long before the Internet, of course, so other teams' announcers who were out of your own radio's reach were totally foreign.

The two letters talking about this represent the debate exactly. I agree with the argument that the letters should go in chronological order. The argument that the newest letter should come first has won the day so far, but the powers that be are willing to re-open the debate, I'm told.

Since there seems to be difference preferences, couldn't we (and by "we" I mean "you") make it a user preference? This is one of the features I like about Slashdot.

Me? No. But the smart people who deal with such things, yes. I'm told that soon, I think days as opposed to weeks, you will be able to decide for yourself whether to view the letters in chronological or reverse chronological order.

That is, the right way or the wrong way.

Just kidding.

It's wrong to suggest the Red Sox did not advance through the 2004 playoffs largely because of pitching. The team's ERA in the Angels' series was 3.54, in the four wins of the Yankees' series it was 2.66 and in the World Series it was 2.50 ... There is surely other evidence out there, but the 2004 Red Sox do not contradict the argument that pitching wins in the playoffs.

Whatever their ERA was against the Angels, they scored 9, 8 and 8 runs.

In the wins over the Yankees they scored 6 (in 12 innings), 5 (in 14), 4 and 10.

Against the Cardinals they scored 11, 6, 4 and 3.

Agreed, they pitched well, for the most part, in their wins. And at times -- the first three against the Yanks and the last two against the Cards -- they needed to. But that's five out of 11 games. In the other six, they could have had an ERA of 7-plus and still won them all. That's a majority of their wins. I'm not saying pitching's not important. I'm just saying it doesn't always come down to pitching, which is pretty much what Brennaman said, though I'm too lazy to go look at the exact quote. I don't think it did for the Sox in '04. They won because they hit a ton and pitched enough.