"Similarly, while I can understand fans of, say, the Milwaukee Brewers, Chicago Cubs and St. Louis Cardinals being interested in that slapstick race, I don't consider it terribly compelling to dissect the antics of mediocre teams as they stumble their way to a decision."

You can just pick it up at play-off time and report as some other division from either league tries to beat the N.L. Central champ this year.

Faulty assumptions by the overwhelming majority of fans and media in any sport, is that a division with everyone around or below .500 stinks.........There's no thought at all. Just show me the records. It's so Americano.

You could theoretically have one of the BCS conferences in football have everyone finish 4-7, 5-6, 6-5, or 7-4....All 3-5, 4-4, or 5-3 in conference. That conference would be the relentless butt of jokes with no one ranked or eligible in any serious discussion.

The balance would be acknowledged but only in the sense that it must be a balance of shit. It couldn't possibly mean it is the best conference, though it may be. It could be best from top to bottom.

Well, last year the Cardinals were 83-78. But under .500 against the Central, including losing 10 of 14 versus the Central in the last 3 weeks, having an 8 game lead go to 1. Then they won it all. What did that mean about the Central?

That we are stretching the minds of the American sportsfan and media to the breaking point here.

That thought process is as follows--A team with a good record and a big name or tradition must be a VERY good team. Anything else is questionable or stinks.

One iota beyond that is the breaking point.

Isn't that bad if they just list their picks and leave it at that. But they always go overboard and toss in the why. First off why include the why? Now you have two picks for each game. If you picked the game correctly against the spread but were off base as to how it happened, that's a loser in my book. If you do get both right, that probably means it was so obvious to begin with that 60 percent of a chimpanzee colony could have nailed it, or 59 percent of a human.

But I'm still trying to figure out the point of arguing with an umpire. It could lead to an ejection, a suspension, a fine, and that ump may now have a vendetta against you. And the call never changes.

Just accept the calls and move on. You're getting paid millions to play baseball.

As getting mouthy and belligerent with a cop. Why? What result are you expecting?

"When Bradley came to bat in the eighth inning, home-plate umpire Brian Runge asked Bradley if he'd thrown his bat at him following a called third strike in his previous at-bat. Bradley said no........"

I'd say if anything is certain in this world Bradley did something with his bat, intentionally, directed at the umpire.

Sherlock Holmes is not needed here.

The first base ump has seen or personally dealt with enough crap out of Bradley that he watches him like a hawk. Bradley knows that and assumed it was him who notified the home plate ump of the intentional bat tossage, which it was intentional.

So Bradley, caught in the act and realizing someone was on his ass full-time, proceeded to first base and went off.

And can't seem to get an answer to is this, concerning the wiretapping and surveillance---If they are monitoring someone and it turns out they are mistaken about any terror connection but the surveillance shows the person was say selling pot, or was a bookie, can they move in and nail them for that?

There's all that much difference between America and Iran. Sure we can run our mouths and blow off steam, but if it comes to changing the system that's out of bounds, there and here.

If you are arguing against what you consider to be a bad call, lobbying so that you may get a bad or make-up call in your favor later, then you aren't really arguing against bad calls.

I think a lot of it is to play along with the barnyard-brain fans. The fans are notorious for using the refs and umps as scapegoats and the coaches and players have to join in on occasion to massage and titillate the barnyard.

If the fans see the manager or coach not arguing, then the losses must be his fault.

Thought that the people behind that story were responding to the non-stop swiftboating of Kerry on FOX. Fighting fire with fire.

I always approve of fighting fire with fire.

I'd flip-flop it. When an opposing runner was called out in obvious error, I go out there and rip the ump a new asshole---God damn it, I want a well officiated game......pick up and throw bases, the whole 9 yards.

Watching some of these highlights of the ballgames in September that are meaningles--pitting manure against manure. Hardly anyone in the stands, whatever attendance given is inflated----I wonder about these late season call-ups from the minors. A lot of guys who have been struggling to make it to the bigs. Some been at it for years. Been dreaming of it since being a little boy. It's their life's goal. And then there they are, they made it, in an empty park. I'm sure it's still exciting for them because they realize where it may lead, but it must be kind of a bummer too.

We may want to include that ballpark he's been playing in in San Fransisco is really, really bad for left hand hitters. Steady breeze coming in from the water in right field, high fence, 421 in right center. No tellin' how many homers he lost.