I've been carrying that only-five-champions-in-19 years stat in my head for a few years (of course, it used to be five champions in 16 years, or whatever) ... I'm crushed, though, just crushed, that you left off the fifth team -- my beloved Rockets.

I didn't leave them off. Five champions in 19 years includes the Rockets' two. I "left them off" when I mentioned the teams that had won at least three, something only the Yankees had done in baseball, because, as you correctly point out, the Rockets haven't won three championships.

- - - -

The guy Reggie Miller works with on TNT is Dick Stockton, a longtime network guy, first for NBC, then for many years with CBS, and now for Fox. He does football for Fox and has also done a lot of baseball.

I think Stockton has lost a step from his heyday, and, though he has a distinctive voice, I don't think his heyday was all that great. I've always thought of him as a kind of solid roster-filler, broadcast wise, who gets an extra few points because of his voice. He's very similar to Don Criqui in that way, in my mind. But I think in the last few years, like I said, he's lost a step or two.

I don't share the opinion in this thread that Miller is awful, and I've spent half my life hating Miller as a player. Yeah, jumping in with that 3 technicals = suspension idea as though it were a fact was a mistake ,but he corrected it at the first opportunity, after a commercial break, when I'm sure he was advised of his error. Good on whoever caught that. I'd never heard of that rule.

But the thing is, Miller's a rookie. He's going to make rookie mistakes. As long as he learns from them and doesn't repeat them, he'll be fine.

- - - -

I didn't think Kobe Bryant looked all nervous because he was around Charles Barkley. I thought he just looked all nervous because that's how he always looks. He has a series of nervous mannerisms that are very difficult to watch on TV.

I also think he was surprisingly useful as an analyst, offering his thoughts about when and why he, and by extension any superstar, makes the decision to try to take over a game offensively, or not do so. This has pretty much been the defining issue and question of his on-court career, so I found his comments interesting. Barkley did a good job of drawing him out on the subject.

I expect my readers to know that whenever I say "Bobby Abreu," what I mean is "Nick Swisher."

Thanks for the catch. I must have confused which list I was looking at. Hardball Times doesn't separate OF by position, and Abreu is at the top of win shares. Must have glanced there when I was meaning to get the LF OPS leaders from ESPN.com.

Fixing.

-- essmeier: While today's column makes some good points, it overlooks this: On any given at-bat, he has a 76.7% chance of making an out. It makes no sense to walk him. Make him hit it.

While I agree that it doesn't make sense to intentionally walk him or even pitch around him, I don't think you can translate his .767 out rate (.233 batting average) to an environment where pitchers "made him hit it." They're pitching him carefully, nibbling. That approach is going to lead to a lot of walks, especially with a batter who, as J. Rauch points out, is selective to a historic degree.

If they pitched him less carefully, threw more hittable strikes, he'd walk less, but he might get better wood on the ball.

I don't know if it would be a net gain for the pitchers or not. I suspect so, that his on-base percentage would come down from the .480 range. But I don't think you can just say he'd continue to hit .233 if they pitched him like they pitch everybody else.

Ya got me there, Bravo10. If it weren't for Bonds' pathetic display in the 2002 World Series -- his only appearance in the World Series and therefore the time when, according to your definition, his team needed him more than at any time during his career -- he surely would have played on a champion.

7-for-18, two doubles, four home runs, 13 walks, .471 batting average, .700 on-base percentage, 1.294 slugging percentage, 1.994 OPS. The guy was a joke. With even adequate play from him, the Giants would have won that series. I don't know why I never realized that before.

I stand in awe of your analysis!

bravo10: I think in the final analysis ... Barry Bonds is a net negative.

Hey, Bravo10, you finally typed something I agree with. Though I disagree with everything I left out of this statement, including that he was a net negative for the Pirates. In fact, I think that statement is about as ridiculous as most of what you've said here. But that's just my opinion, and anyone who reads my column knows I'm a Barry Bonds and Giants apologist who never says anything negative about him or them.

The entire point of the lockout, as explained by Bettman, was to create a league in which Edmonton and Buffalo could compete with Detroit and, well, ha, the Rangers.

I love Walton. They're not all dire. He'll also say, like, "Shandon Anderson, one of the finest defensive players in the history of the league."