Cardinals collapse

What a complete and total disaster the World Series is turning out to be for the St. Louis Cardinals. Starting pitchers who can't get past the 4th inning. A fearsome batting order that can't manage to drive in a run. Throw in a few baserunning errors. What do you have?

A four game sweep in the making.

I'm calling it now. The Red Sox are your new world champions; get out your brooms.

1985, 1987, and now 2004. What's a fan to do? Cardinal pitching collapses in the postseason. It's getting to be quite predictable (See John Tudor, Game 7 '85 series -- that debacle still haunts me).

Let me spotlight a perfect example of the Cardinal ineptness in the Series. Game 3. Boston has a 1-0 lead on a first inning home run. You have the bases loaded, one out. Larry Walker is on third. Jim Edmonds, who can't seem to buy a hit in the postseason (save one walk-off homerun), hits a fly ball to left. Now, do you send Walker or do you save him and hope Reggie Sanders can get a base hit. Walker goes, he's out at the plate, and the Cardinals waste perhaps a golden opportunity.

Want another example? This is a LaRussa mistake int he 4th inning. You're down two games to none in the World Series. If you lose this, it's all but over. The only team to come back from a 3-0 deficit is the team facing you. You have first and third, nobody out. You can't seem to buy a run, so you need to keep the game close. Do you leave Suppan out there? Consider that he just got thrown out at the plate in the bottom of the third. Al Reyes is warming up. Why not bring in a fresh pitcher, who doesn't have a fresh mistake hanging over his head? Now, regular season, you might let him work out of the jam. But this is not the regular season. This is it. I mean, this game is it. You lose this. You lose the Series. You're facing the team of destiny, it seems, and you need to give them a reason, any reason, to question themselves. Your previous two pitchers didn't make it through 5 innings. Why would you expect Suppan to? Especially knowing he pitches better on the road than at home?

Don't get me wrong. I'm not blaming LaRussa for the Series loss. I blame the Cardinal bats. Where are Rolen and Edmonds? When those guys become easy outs, the Cardinals lose? The injury to Womack, and Renteria forced into a situation he's not comfortable with, equals trouble. Why not play Hart at second and let him lead off. Let Renteria bat in the sixth spot, since it fits better for him. Without Rolen and Edmonds as threats, you need Renteria's bat for sure.

Even with those changes, Rolen's and Edmonds' silences were probably insurmountable.

Maybe next year. Hopefully the Cardinals will manage to find a decent starter or two to replace some of the ones they had to depend on this year. Hopefully Danny Haren and Rick Ankiel will figure into the rotation.

The Spectre of Specter

Jonah Goldberg in The Corner has this to say about Senator Arlen Specter from Pennslyvania.

An even more limited resource is Arlen Specter who, according to everybody I talked to (including several pro-Specter Republicans) is simply doing as little as he can for Bush. The ingratitude of that is shocking. Bush spent real political capital helping Specter get the nomination and Specter is giving next to nothing in return.

I believe Bush is actually getting exactly what he deserves. There was no reason for him to back Specter in the primary against Pat Toomey. I've heard many say that electability was a major concern. Why? Rick Santorum is from Pennsylvania. He's just as conservative as Toomey. There is absolutely no reason that Toomey could not win. He would have won the primary without the President's efforts on behalf of Specter. I despise Specter, but he is just being who he has always been. He's never been a dependable Republican (see Bork), and Bush should never have helped him defeat Toomey. They say insanity is repeating the same action while expecting a different result. It truly is insane to expect Specter to change when he is near the end of his political career. Bush and his advisors should have known better.

What was he thinking, redux?

BoSox Manager Terry Francona managed to anger some on what was arguably the greatest night in the recent history of that franchise. For some unbelievably obtuse reason, he let Pedro Martinez pitch the 7th inning at Yankee Stadium when the game was well in hand. Why? Pedro got absolutely hammered, giving up several hits and 2 runs. More importantly, he let the Yankee fans back into the game. Now, you might understand this move if the Sox were behind and felt like they had no choice but to bring him in. That was not the case here.

Talk radio this morning was abuzz with talk about this asinine move. Fortunately, the Sox won anyway, but it seems that, like the Dodgers did many times this season, they were winning in spite of their manager, not because of him.

No, he did NOT!!!

He did NOT just say what I think he said, did he?

I think he did. Take a look at this quote, near the bottom of his long post:

With a choice between Tracy, Felipe Alou, Bruce Bochy, Clint Hurdle, Al Pedrique, Art Howe, Frank Robinson, Larry Bowa, Dusty Baker, Phil Garner, Tony La Russa, Lloyd McClendon, Dave Miley, and Ned Yost, Tracy's at least in the top three or four. It's possible to do better than Tracy, but not probable.

Now, keep in mind I just laid the wood to LaRussa for his boneheaded move in keeping Calero in game 4 of the NLCS. But, overall, I'm fairly happy with him as manager. But seriously, let's get real. Jim Tracy in the top 3 or 4 in THAT list? I seriously doubt it. In fact, I KNOW he's not.

Let's see:
LaRussa - has the Cardinals in contention every year. This year they had the best record in baseball with what EVERYONE concedes is suspect starting pitching.
Baker - came within an inch of a World Series title with the Giants. If Bonds gets on his horse, he wears the ring. Now, YOU may fault Baker for having Bonds in the game, but I'm not going to do that. I'll take Baker over Tracy any day. And I'm no Baker fan.
Garner - makes his mistakes, that's for sure. For instance, not putting in Lidge in Game 2 before it was too late. But the 'Stros close out the year hotter than anyone, and they've tied it up with the best team in baseball in the NLCS. Plus, he learns from his mistakes, as my friend Steve Haskins so aptly pointed out here. So, again, I'll also take Garner over Tracy anyday.

I'm not going to go any further. So, let me just stop here and point back to the quote above...

...Tracy's at least in the top three or four...

At least in the top three or four? So, in effect, he's saying, he's no worse than fourth. No, no, no, a thousand TIMES no!!!! Jim Tracy is not in the top three, period. He's not even close. At MOST, he could be fourth. But I'm not going to give him that either. Now, I'm not going through the other named managers because I don't have time. However, I'm certain that I would choose ALL of them over Jim Tracy. Well, maybe not Art Howe, but that still leaves Tracy second to last, AT BEST.

So, please, in the interests of my sanity, don't mention Jim Tracy in the same breath with managers who are FAR superior to him. I'm begging you.

What was he thinking?

Let's set the stage during yesterday's Cardinals-Astros NLCS game.

It's the bottom of the sixth, and Kiki Calero is pitching. Berkman comes up first and smashes a home run. (Keep in mind, Calero has already pitched the fifth.) Now, anyone can give up a homerun on a bad pitch. So, at this point, there's no need to panic.

Next batter. Kent. He strikes out. This seems to indicate that the Berkman at-bat was an aberration. But then Ensberg comes up to the plate. He takes a monster cut, and sends one to left, just about to the warning track. Now, it's time for LaRussa to sit up and take notice. The second batter of the inning that actually made contact, makes GOOD contact. Calero is getting hit hard, but fortunately, only one run has scored as a result. Now, might be a good time to think about replacing him.

Next batter. Vizcaino. Not exactly a fearsome hitter. But he smacks a double into the left field corner. Again, SOLID contact. Not a bloop double here. Now, that's three batters making contact, one homerun, one double, and one LONG flyball. It's understandable that, bottom of the order and all, you don't really want to bring in a pitcher for the 8 and 9 batters. But this IS the NLCS. You make the moves you have to make to win.

But he leaves Calero in. And sure enough, Chavez smacks a single and Vizcaino scores. Tie ball game. THEN, LaRussa brings Ray King in for his one batter. What a waste.

Consider this. King gets brought in after the Berkman homerun or after the long Engsberg flyout or after the sharply hit Vizcaino double. He finishes off the inning, getting Chavez and Palmeiro. Cardinals still have a one-run lead.

That makes Beltran's homerun an entirely different animal. It TIES the game instead of giving the 'Stros the lead. Now, they use Lidge for his two innings and the game goes into extra innings. At some point, Garner has to go back to his bullpen. A bullpen the Cardinals have feasted on for those first two games. A bullpen they haven't really seen in these last two games. Maybe the Cardinals don't end up winning anyway, but it sure gives them a better chance.

Come on LaRussa, quit playing your stupid matchups. They don't mean anything. Pay attention to what's going on in the field, for crying out loud. If you lose us this series, I will never forgive you. (You do remember that Gibson homerun, don't you?)

Bush Does Too Well -- Is Fired.

The Anchoress has a thought-provoking post up called "The Woman in the Black Hijab." Read it all. One section really struck me as being right on.

Perhaps President Bush had done his job too well. After a recession and a terror attack and two wars we find our economy in rip-roaring shape. Jobs up. Housing starts up. Restaurants full. Theaters full. Highways crammed with new cars. All of your kids have iPods, whether they need them or not. All of John Kerry's supporters have his bumper stickers on their Beemers. America is not suffering. Mostly.

This election is so close precisely because Bush has done so well. We have regressed to our comfortable "can't touch us" mindset. Only another attack would bring us to our senses and remind us of the stakes in our war against terror.

Googling one's name

I've been told that the most frequent searches performed on Google are individuals googling their own names.

Never having done so, I gave it a whack. And found this:

Land Murphy has a "career" in game development. It likely spans more years than 1998. I'd almost forgotten that I beta-tested Commandos from Pyro Studios for free while I was finishing up college. I've always been a rabid gamer, and this was part of that obsession/addiction. However, this a career does not make.

Amusing to say the least.

Dodgers - Cardinals: Game 2

It's do or die time for the Dodgers. I'm all for the dying. The Cardinals' pitchers have the opportunity this postseason to serve the baseball "experts" a healthy serving of crow. The Cardinals vied for the ERA crown in the National League; the Cardinal relievers tied for second in the Rolaids Relief competition in all of baseball.

Woody Williams was not stellar by any stretch of the imagination in game 1. The Cardinal bats put the game out of reach early, giving him a much easier time. I'd like to see Jason Marquis, someone the experts have stamped with a huge question mark for the playoffs, completely shut the Dodgers down. I think the Dodgers are on the ropes after game 1, and Marquis has the perfect chance to build his confidence and silence the critics.

It's possible that again the Cardinal bats will knock out Weaver early, allowing Marquis to coast. However, a shut out would be beautiful right about now.

Susan Estrich v. Bill Kristol on Fox News

Perhaps the best part of the Cheney-Edwards debate last night came when Greta of FoxNews had a panel on to discuss who came out looking better.

Susan Estrich, she of the shrill far-left, accused Carl Cameron, Rich Lowry, and Bill Kristol all of being "untruthful" about the winner of the debate. (Let me note here that I do not have the time to go into Estrich's seeming inability to comprehend the simplest of questions from Greta even before the incident discussed below.)

First, let's take Carl Cameron. He's known as "Campaign" Carl, and he's a political REPORTER, for crying out loud. Carl was not even a member of the panel and could not defend himself. Most importantly, Carl was simply reporting what he had been told by Democratic pundits in the room. To accuse him of lying about what he has been told, not even what he himself observed, is really beyond the pale.

Rich Lowry of National Review only had a brief few seconds to defend himself and did an adequate job. But his reaction was much less interesting visually than Bill Kristol.

Bill Kristol is an interesting character. He always seems to be smiling and amiable. But let last night be a warning to all, do not accuse the man of lying. He was visibly angry, leaning forward in his chair. I'm convinced he and Estrich would have come to blows had they been in the same room. The righteous indignation was priceless. It came across as a "How dare you..." moment. Which from a third year law school perspective is even better, as you always hope to be able to pull out the righteous indignation card in a closing statement when a victim's or witness's credibility is questioned. In my book, Kristol had every right to be angry, and he was very specific about not wanting to appear on a show just to be called a liar on national television. Really, who could blame him?

But boy, did it make for fascinating television. My wife suggested that Estrich was playing the role of Omarosa, she of Apprentice: Season 1 fame. I'd certainly tune in to watch Kristol go toe-to-toe with Estrich any time for a serious debate. Kristol v. Estrich could easily replace Greta's ("A new development in the Scott Peterson case: Prosecution rests") tabloid fodder.

Pujols for MVP!

Pujols homers to center in inning one of the NLDS.

He gets my (irrelevant) vote for MVP.

Bonds - MVP?

So let's talk baseball. The playoffs start today, so it seems to be the perfect time. Let me be clear here: I am an unabashed St. Louis Cardinals fan, always have been. That does not mean, at least for me, that I can't take a position on whether Bonds should win the MVP. I believe he should not. Here's why.

Bonds had another amazing year; there's no denying that. He walked a gazillion times and still was near the lead in home runs. But down the stretch, he faltered. Let's go to the numbers in the last two series of the season (not counting the final game which was meaningless). San Francisco's playoff hopes were on the line for these series against San Diego and Los Angeles.

Tue. Sep. 28 0 for 3 w/ 2 walks
Wed. Sep. 29 0 for 3 w/ 1 walk
Thu. Sep. 30 1 for 4 w/ 0 walks
Fri. Oct. 1 0 for 1 w/ 3 walks
Sat. Oct. 2 0 for 1 w/ 3 walks

So, Bonds goes 1 for 12 with 9 walks with the season on the line, and the Giants miss the playoffs by a game. No dispute, Bonds is one of the best ever. But he does not deserve the MVP this year. Three other stars are preparing, as I type, to take the field while Bonds sits at home. Adrian Beltre, Scott Rolen, and Albert Pujols all have statistics worthy of MVP consideration. Plus, their teams, thanks to their efforts, have a chance at a World Series trophy. With similar statistics, tie should go to the player - the player still playing in October.

Give it to Beltre. Give it to Rolen. Give it to Pujols. Just don't give it to Bonds. He doesn't deserve it. When it counted, he let his team down. That's not valuable in my book.

Welcome

It seems fitting that a first post be something of an introduction.

As a third-year non-traditional law student, I have wide ranging interests that really don't neatly fit into anything like an ordered scheme. I need...well, I crave a place to randomly comment on anything from law to sports to politics to my video game addiction. This blog is intended to be that place. Welcome to it.