Rich: I think it's probably not correct to say Detroit got "lucky" (or the Yankees unlucky),

Those are two different things. I didn't say the Tigers got lucky. They played well and therefore they won. Also, the Yankees played poorly and therefore they lost. But: the Yankees did get unlucky to a certain extent because they had to play a Tigers team that was playing well, and particularly pitching well.

Just a few days before, the Royals had gotten lucky by getting to play a Tigers team that couldn't get out of its own way. If that team had showed up against the Yankees, the Yankees might have won. I mean, if you can get swept by the Royals, you can certainly lose three of five to the Yankees.

I suppose I could also say the Tigers got lucky by running into a Yankees team that was playing poorly, though I would argue that their playing poorly was a result of the Tigers pitching so well. The Tigers playing well, and pitching well, didn't look to me like the product of anything the Yankees were doing or not doing.

Another way to look at it. Several years ago when the A's won 20 games in a row, were they that good a team, good enough to win every day? Well, of course not. But for three weeks they were. I'm not saying they got lucky in this game or that one, though that may have happened here and there, I don't remember. They played out of their minds for three weeks. They really were that good. But if you were one of the teams that happened to have them on the schedule during those three weeks, you were unlucky. You ran into them during a period when they were overachieving. If you'd played them a month earlier or later, you might not have gotten swept because they weren't hitting on all cylindars anymore.

That's the point about luck, or at least that part of the point about luck. Now, whether I'm correct or not is a different matter, but that's the point I made.

Christopher: I agree the Yankees lost primarily because of their lack of pitching, but I don't think either Verlander or Bonderman was "lucky."

Just to reiterate, neither do I.

Walter: This week the ALCS will start and the only two teams in MLB of whose existence you are aware will NOT be playing.

Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs. That's three teams I'm aware of!

t will be a long fall for you, my friend. You can spend it writing "Mrs. King Kaufman-Jeter" in your notebook and making preparations next season's Two Team American League Season.

I'll do that. Read my column much?

Incidentally, why has it become accepted as fact that Jeter, who's likely to win the MVP, had his best year this year? He was better in 1999, though not with the glove. That was before he improved from awful to mediocre with the leather, but he was way better as a hitter. He was 6th in the MVP voting that year.

bravo: However, for everyone who is poor-mouthing the committee that decided not to vote him into the Hall point to the stats that support your argument.

I'm not aware of anyone arguing that O'Neil should have been voted in as a player, but rather for his overall contributions to the game, which were gigantic. What were Effa Manley's stats?

joey b: Apart from the rehash of moldy old Boss bashing, what exactly is Steinbrenner nuts about?

and

When you try to hit a well-thrown baseball with a thin round bat, funny things can happen.

Right. So why's he going off on Torre for losing short series?

If you make the playoffs every year, and the playoffs are a crapshoot, you should win about one of four pennants and one of eight titles. Since their last championship, the Yankees have won two pennants and no titles in six years. They're ahead of the game. But Steinbrenner believes there is a terrible flaw when they don't win every year. That's nuts. Or at least it's a fundamental misunderstanding of the game.

A red star indicates an "Editor's choice" letter. Except on rare occasions, I am the "editor" of the letters for my colulmn. And only for my column. Salon has real editors to handle the letters on all the other stories.

I can't speak for the other editors, but here's what the red stars mean for this column:

They're intended as a guide for readers who don't want to sift through potentially hundreds of letters, but just want to get the gist of a conversation. So a red star essentially means, "This is the best or (more likely) the first letter that makes this point central to the discussion of this column or the issues therein."

My intention is that if you read the red-star letters only, you won't get the full breadth and depth, such as they are, of the discussion, but you'll get the major points. It's the Cliffs Notes version of the conversation.

This is, of course, an inexact science, but I do my best.

What a red star is not is a kindergarten style "Great job, Sparky!" If a letter is hilarious and well-argued, but off-topic, it's probably not going to get a star.

That's why there's sometimes a red star on my own letters, which are almost always replies to other comments. I'm not patting myself on the back for a great letter. I'm saying I consider my reply to be central to the conversation