Heilman vs. Wagner:

Maybe Randolph was managing for the 10th, but it seemed to me like he'd just lost faith in Wagner, which probably wasn't a bad thing to do. And even if he was managing for the 10th, that looks pretty good if you get there. It's not like Heilman's some bum, or Yadier Molina's some big threat. Except in hindsight. This was said better up-thread.

and Carlos Motherfucking Beltran looking stupid like he never saw a curveball in his entire life.

Tough crowd! Did you see that curveball? And did you see the year Beltran had? Good grief.

the fact that the team with the longer layoff had to play fewer games in the LCS, meaning that they beat their opponent with greater ease, which implies that they were probably the better team in the first place.

Could be that. But it also could reflect a weaker LCS opponent. Or just some crazy postseason crapshoot stuff.

What I don't get, though, is why you chose to limit this to the modern era.

Because while I agree with you that 19th century baseball is interesting, I also think that 1901 is a pretty good dividing line. From that point on, baseball really looks like baseball today, with the National and American leagues, both eight teams, etc. It's convention, is the main reason, and I understand that that convention, talking about "modern" era only, or not even qualifying and saying something is the something "in history" when it's really only the something since 1901, is your pet peeve. But I don't have a big problem with it.

Von der Ahe didn't found the Cardinals, by the way. He bought them. He was a saloon owner and he wondered why his place emptied out some afternoons at the same time. It was next door to the ballpark. So he figured he'd sell his beer at the ballpark -- thus inventing a great American institution. But the owners of the team, then still called the Brown Stockings, were teetotalers, temperence union types. I want to say they were the Spinks, who also founded the Sporting News, but I'm not sure about that. Anyway, von der Ahe bought the team and the park.

watcher: Glenn Braggs, Cincinnati, 1990 - robbing some nameless Pirate in game 5 (best of 5 back then) ... p.s. that catch actually won his team the game.

Watcher, you're just remembering it wrong.

The NLCS was best-of-7 in 1990, and the Reds beat the Pirates in six games. The Pirates won Game 5 to pull to within 3-2. The Reds won Game 6, 2-1, so that's the only game where the situation was anywhere close to a Game 7. Braggs entered in the eighth inning as a defensive replacement in RF, and made one play. It was on a fly ball by Barry Bonds (some nameless Pirate?) in the ninth, with the bases empty. So if that was the play, that home run would have only tied the game, and the Reds still had a game in hand anyway.

I watched that series but I confess I don't remember Braggs' catch. So I can't argue whether Braggs' catch was physically greater than Chavez's, but situationally, I think Chavez has him by a country mile.

Besides, Chavez did it in New York [ducks].

- - - -

As for Edmonds' base-running blunder, I agree he messed up. It looked to me like where he was when the ball was caught was about two steps past second.

- - - -

As for Randolph's managerial moves, I'm surprised the one Mets fans aren't upset about -- at least here, maybe they are on N.Y. radio etc. -- was pinch-hitting Cliff Floyd with two on and none out, down 3-1 in the 9th. I know Cliff Floyd is Cliff Floyd, but this year he hit like a middle infielder, and that was when he was mostly healthier than what he was Thursday. Randolph was wishcasting. What he needed was a real middle infielder to put down a bunt and bring up Reyes and Lo Duca with the tying runs in scoring position and one out. He looks like a genius of Floyd catches one, but that seems like it was a pretty remote possibility.

Matt B, I agree weekend World Series games should be played in the daytime, but the issue isn't whether Fox has a double-header or its own college football games. Fox doesn't want the World Series to compete with the NFL, which is a sure loser, and doesn't want it to compete with college football, which I don't know if it's a sure loser, but will at least be a drain on ratings.

Good point about La Russa not hitting Duncan for Molina. I meant to mention that and forgot. I suspect La Russa was going with the hot hand and/or playing a hunch, or had found a stat that Duncan was 0-for-2 against Jones or something.