At the beginning of Vikings home games, the Vikings have a inflatable boat that the Vikings run out of as the starting line-up is announced. Everyone in Minnesota is wondering is they are going to do away with the boat this week or have a little humor and add a couple Georgia strippers to run out with the boys.

Ever since the Vikings decided to purify themselves in the waters of Lake Minnetonka, I've been surprised at the way the media has insisted on referring to it as a "sex party." Why not "orgy?" It's so much more fun to say, and it applies (I checked). You tell me which sounds better: "The Vikings took part in a sex party on a boat," or "the Vikings had an orgy on a boat?"

I guess it's no shock that the Twin Cities local media wouldn't have the flair to call an orgy an orgy, but I expect a little better from a guy with your words skills. C'mon, King, admit it: it was an orgy.

(oh, and yeah, the Packers are going to annihilate them)

King:

I love your stuff. One correction. Until recent realignment, we (the Chisox) were in the AL West, for some reason. So all of those Tuesday nights in old Comiskey were against the Mariners and the Angels, not the Brewers and Indians.

Keep up the good work.

The other Sox, the White ones, the ones without the beantown charm but with this year's AL crown, do indeed seem to be unloved. Or perhaps better put, unknown.

Of the three teams claiming the longest championship drought over the years, they lost the 'lovable losers' battle to the Cubs because the Sox were not as consistently horrible. In fact, they almost always finished over .500 in the years since '59, and in some years were the second best team in their league before the wild-card format was established. They lost out to Boston in the charming Fenway, green monster, curse of the Bambino comparison.

Mostly, it has been the fate of the White Sox to be the second team in the Second City. Not so bad as to be remarkable in their futility, but not good enough to garner attention for their successes.

"Last year I did a little study on the matter, and I concluded, I think, that the World Series designated hitter rule either benefits the home team, or it benefits the American League team in its home games."

Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't this redundant since the home team will always be the American League team when the DH is being used?

Keith: I used "orgy" last week. Actually I just think "sex party" is funnier than "orgy," for the same reason that "tuna" is funnier than "trout," which is to say, I don't know why.

Daniel: I know the ChiSox were in the West. And they still seemed to play the Brewers and the Indians all the time. But yeah, the Mariners too. In the dome. Gosh, depressing. And thanks for the kind words.

No name given: What I mean by the designated hitter rule, in that context, is the rule that the DH is used in the A.L. park but not the N.L. Since that rule has come in, home teams have fared better in the World Series than one would expect from regular season and league-playoff results in the same period. Kind of makes sense, since the home team is playing by its own league's rules and the visitor is playing under rules for which its roster was not designed.

On the other hand, the sample size is small enough, only about 100 games, and the presence of the anomalously dominant '98-00 Yankees might throw things off enough to make my findings meaningless.

Ah, let's all remind ourselves of King's predictions at the start of the playoffs:

...

LCS predictions: Astros over Cardinals, Angels over Red Sox

World Series prediction: Astros over Angels

...

Pretty sharp in the NL, but not doing so well in the AL. Anyway, I feel better the Astros being the underdog for some reason - I still don't get this nonsense the White Sox have better starting pitching. They have some good arms, but the Angels - well - they stunk. I have a feeling the 'stros will hit the ball better than anyone is expecting.

I myself don't know who will win, but I'm of course pulling for my Astros. And well, the White Sox may have waited since 1917 but they have won it, and they're young, they'll be back - this is probably the last chance for the Bagwell and Biggio so I think that makes us more of a sentimental favorite. Not that that's likely to have any bearing on who actually wins, but we'll see.

Why is it that every week you pick against the Colts, sure they're undefeated and that's unlikely to continue all season, but against the Texans. Now granted I'll be knocking on wood after I type this here in Indy, but I'm pretty sure we could start our practice squad defense agaist Carr and still manage to give up less than 10 points.

Additionally, they could suit up my 6-3, 295, unathletic rear-end, put me in the slot and--provided I could hang onto Peyton's missles--gain somewhere in the neighborhood of 80 yards.

"And Clemens and Pettitte, for all their reputation, have a way of coming up small in big games, though they've also both come up big."

I've been hearing about Clemens not showing up in the postseason for so long that I'd started to believe it. So, I decided to look at his numbers. When it comes to the World Series, small describes his numbers better than his performance.

Career: .665 winning percentage, 3.12 ERA, and WHIP of 1.17. About a 3:1 ratio of K/BB.

Postseason (overall): 12-8, 3.56 ERA, WHIP of 1.20. 2.51K:BB.

World Series: 7 GS, 3-0, 1.91 ERA, 4K:BB, 0.95 WHIP.

The postseason, overall, does show a modest drop from his normal numbers. I'm tempted to explain this as simply better quality opponents, but that argument is undercut by the World Series results, which are stellar. Either way, it doesn't seem like he is really coming up small that often in the postseason, especially in World Series.

I have an alternate hypothesis: we expect him to be good, so we tend to forget about his strong games (just another Clemens performance) but the bad outings linger in the memory precisely because they are unusual.

[Incidentally, Pettitte isn't that different from regular season to postseason either, but his World Series results don't impress the same way Clemens' does. Again, he looks like what you'd expect from the same pitcher, but against better opponents.

Career: .654 winning percentage, 3.78 ERA, 1.34 WHIP, 2.34K:BB

Postseason: 14-9, 4.11 ERA, 1.35 WHIP, 2.24K:BB

World Series: 3-4. 3.90 ERA, 1.40 WHIP, 2.33K:BB]