I'm sorry. I'm really not getting your point.

Huh?

Really? This was the "worst" series since the late 1990s? How about the Dodgers-A's fiasco somewhere in the mid-1970s?

Also, yes, I thought the last two World Series had more thrills and chills than this one. Last year was a sweep of close games. 2004 at least had that crazy Game 1, and then some crazy pitching by the Red Sox.

- - - -

Thanks all for pointing out it was Havlicek, not Russell, that Auerbach was mad at Ryan about. That's been fixed.

- - - -

Grumpy Optimist: I got really annoyed with Auerbach's classless attitude toward Jackson. Oh, Jackson had great players, sure--unlike Auerbach, who had to work with such nonentities as Russell, Cousy and Havlicek.

I agree with you, but to be fair, Auerbach put together those teams too, unlike Jackson. His point was that Jackson signed on with teams that had superstars primed to succeed. Then again, when Jackson re-signed with the Lakers, Auerbach said he was just doing it for the money. Clearly, whatever Jackson did, Auerbach was going to slam him for it, and, as the L.A. Times pointed out, Jackson said a lot by uncharacteristically not responding.

- - - -

Re the DFG, Designated Fiery Guy, did you all see that new MLB award, the Holiday Inn Look Again award? It's for unsung heroes, supposedly. Fans get to vote on it. There's one candidate from each team, a guy who, well, here: "Behind every great team on the diamond, lurking in the shadow of baseball superstars, live the role players who sacrifice for their team in often unrecognized effort. Which of these role players' best deserves recognition for their contributions as the Holiday Inn Look Again Player of the Year?"

The answer, of course, is Eckstein.

This is really the Designated White Guy award. Thirty candidates, 28 non-Hispanic white guys.

The NBA has lost my interest and I'm not sure what it's going to take to get it back

We're all devastated.

I agree it's a combination of the three reasons for the new ball. I don't think there was any great clamor from the players. I never heard anyone complain about how leather balls were all different. But Spalding's been in Stern's ear about it for years, and must have finally just convinced him. I have heard the good leather is getting scarce.

Also, while PETA is crowing about a great victory and giving away tickets to NBA games in celebration, the NBA says animal rights concerns had nothing to do with the decision.

Is it really "luck" when your opponent performs poorly? I suppose it is in a sense, if you happen to play against your opponent on a night they happen to underperform. But would we not then be forced to say that if a team loses because they underperform, the losers can chalk up their loss to bad luck?

No, they chalk up their loss to underperformance. I don't see why we'd be forced to chalk it up to luck at all. Why would it be zero-sum?

The losers lost because they failed to do something. Since the losers were capable of doing it, and the winners played no part in the losers failing, it's good luck for the winners. That doesn't make it bad luck for the losers.

If you and I are in algebra class together, and the person with the highest score on the final exam wins a prize, and you always get a 95 on every exam, highest in the class, and I always get 92, second highest, and you have spring fever and you get overconfident and sloppy and you only get an 88 on the final while I get my usual 92, I win.

I got lucky. I got a 92 with my skill. But I won because of luck.

You? You just screwed up.

DavidN I either don't understand or disagree with your distinction between "luck" and "fortune." The Knicks made their free throws. Good for them. And they won partly because they did that. It wasn't all luck. But the fact is if an 80-percent free-throw shooter doesn't clank two free throws in a row, an event over which the Knicks had no control, the Knicks lose. They got lucky.

Snowing in Detroit: Weren't you in a fantasy league this year, King? How did that go?

Yes. Baseball Prospectus just today published an article recapping the end of the season, with a long comment from me at the end. We finished third in our four-team division, but with the sixth-best record in a 12-team lead. Respectable. I'll write about it either very soon or next spring. Here's the PB story: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=5676

12-team league.

JLS: So the question has to be asked of 'The Genius': Why go away from your bread and butter and force Brady to make throws to mediocre at best receivers who turned the second half into a tip-drill for the Colts secondary?

Good question. John Madden asked it last night. The Pats had just run this fake up the middle, fake the end around, screen pass incomplete thing.

"You know, sometimes you think that the Patriots don't need this. They don't have to do reverses and screens and stuff. I mean, if they just run right at 'em they can be successful. Just hand the ball to Maroney, he'll run. You don't have to fake to Maroney, fake the end around, come back to the screen. Because that's the one thing that this Colt defense can defend. They can defend that because they're small but they're fast."

bewebste: This is Parcells' fourth year.

Ah, crap, did I write third? You know what I did? I wrote third, then I thought, "That's not right. It's his fourth, right?" Then I looked it up. Yup. It's his fourth. Then I went right back to writing.

Fixing ...