For one thing the Yankees are tired. Jeter has water on the knee, Rivera went rubber armed in September. Papelbon earned almost no saves the last month, (that cost me the fantasy title), and he is a fresh horse. Gagne is learning the system. The Sox have the bullpen, if that matters.

The Dbacks have a zero dimensional team. What do they do well? Nothing. The Dodgers should have won, but they ran off the track. The Padres might have won. They made the right midseason trades, except they dumped David Wells. This is the Tball division. The Phillies swept San Diego, in san Diego, late in the season. Without the Padres the Cubs have a chance.

Angels? Rally Monkeys? Right color, wrong team.

Sox in four, pick your opponent.

But Rockies are right there in bold. Were you having a moment? Presumably you really meant to pick the Phillies, right?

In the American League, the Red Sox play the Los Anahangeles Angels...

Ugh. You know, I almost posted a comment about yesterday's column thanking you for mentioning the Angels without bringing up the "Los Angeles/Anaheim" business. I don't like the "Los Angeles/Anaheim" business, for the following reasons: (A) the issue is old; they've used that name for several years now; (B) every columnist or commentator who mentions them goes out of their way to make some "clever" remark about it; (C) the remark is not clever; (D) the remarks are old, very old--every columnist has been making these "clever" remarks for years; (E) the remarks weren't even clever when the Angels started this "Los Angeles" business several years ago; (F) this practice on the part of commentators and columnists is mildly hypocritical, in view of the fact that they do not engage is similar "cleverness"--which is not, as I may have mentioned, actually clever--about the New Yorjersey Jets/NewYorjersey Football Giants. (And please, for the love of God man, do not start making "clever" remarks about the home town of the Jets/Giants. The Angels ones are more than enough.)

I decided not to make such a comment; if King is giving that business a rest, I said to myself, better to go along with not mentioning it. Maybe I shoulda commented.

This is not motivated by some Angels fandom or other bias; I'm a Bostonian living in San Francisco, and currently my Angels-related thoughts are mainly along the lines of "I hope the Sox win it in 3". Mocking the Angels for their LA self-styling is getting as old as the Red Sox beautiful-losers business that, thankfully, ended in 2004. We get it: they're really in Anaheim. That's completely different from LA. Duly noted. Please find some new gags. (The Beyonce one sounds like a winner!)

King,

I know that you don't care about this sort of thing since you left the heartland of America for the Godless left coast, but I am hoping for something to happen that has not happened since 1906-1908 - three years of World Series where the teams come from states that do not touch an ocean. In 1906, Cubs vs White Sox, in 1907, Cubs vs Tigers, in 1908, Cubs vs Tigers, but I'm sure that you knew that.

So go Cleveland and (Cubs or Arizona)!

By the way, just for the record, I consider the Golden years of Baseball to be 1990 to 1993: Cinncinati, My Twins, and two years of the Blue Jays. Not a California team or New York team as a winner.

I'll go with the Phillies

Prediction: Rockies in five

The Red Sox ended their one-year postseason drought by becoming the first team to win the American League East while not wearing New York Yankees rompers since 1995.

I know it's hard to remember, but there actually was a time when the Orioles were good. Baltimore won the East in 1997.

I know it's hard to remember, but there actually was a time when the Orioles were good. Baltimore won the East in 1997

Ack! It is hard to remember. I remember, but thought they only won wild cards. My mistake and my fault for not checking my memory. Fixing that now. Thanks.

Also, yeah. Phillies over Rockies. Also fixed.

Two things about the Indians this postseason:

First, 35 years as a Cleveland sports fan (I'm not counting my entire life, just the part since I started following sports) has conditioned me to expect the worst. The Drive, The Fumble, The Shot, The Tom Glavine four-foot-wide strike zone, The Mesa, The Browns move to Baltimore (and win the Super Bowl two years later). Cleveland teams never win and when it looks like they might win they then lose in the most heartbreaking, kick-in-the-nads way possible.

A couple weeks ago, I reflected on my year in sports fandom.

>In January the Ohio State Buckeyes football team(who Clevelanders treat as their own) went into the national championship game undefeated and ranked #1, then got annihilated by Florida. I don't even remember the score, it was too horrible.

>In March the Ohio State Buckeyes basketball team went into the national championship game and, again, got soundly beaten by Florida.

> Just last week, or whenever it is that NBA playoffs finally ended, the Cleveland Cavaliers made it to the NBA Finals for the first time ever... and got swept by San Antonio.

So I am convinced that the Indians will make the World Series, be favored and lose in 4 to Colorado.

Second, you said "the bullpen is solid, though again, the best pitcher, Rafael Betancourt, has to stand by and watch Joe "5-plus ERA" Borowski close."

Which is true, but you say that like it's a bad thing.

Remember a few years ago (2003?) when the Red Sox were supposedly going to try a "closer by commitee", allegedly following the advice of the legendary Bill James? James had criticized the modern use of the closer, suggesting that using your best reliever only in save situations wasn't the best use of his talent. James suggested that teams would benefit from a more '70s style approach, using their best pitcher whenever there was a high-leverage situation and if that situation happened to be a tie in the 7th and not a lead in the 9th, so be it. What's the point, James asked, of losing a game in innings 6-8 because your best reliever is on the bench waiting for a lead that may never come?

Anyway, the Red Sox tried to do something different from the standard modern closer. They had mixed results and got slammed in the press. So they went out in the offseason and got a genuine capital "C" closer and have stuck with that plan ever since. (and won a world series in the process, so, yay them, I guess)

The Indians have come at it from another direction, whether by design or by accident, I'm not sure.

The Indians have solved the problem of losing a game because your best reliever is the closer and he's sitting in the bullpen waiting for a save situation, by NOT making their best reliever their closer.

And it makes total sense. The job of a closer is not really that hard. Borowski led the AL in saves with an ERA of 5.07. You come in at the start of the 9th with the bases empty and your team ahead 1-3 runs and you try to finish that inning without losing the lead. It's not that big a challenge. The one thing a closer does need is the ability to shrug off a failure, Borowski has that. Otherwise he's an average pitcher (at best).

By assigning a mentally tough, but otherwise mediocre pitcher the relatively easy closer job, the Indians free up their three best relievers (Betancourt, Rafael Perez and Jensen Lewis) to pitch whenever it best serves the team.