Some of you know I'm a newspaper journalist in real life. On the side I also write book reviews  for an entertainment site in Southern California. I just reviewed The Soul of Baseball, Joe Posnanski's book about Buck O'Neil. Thought you might be interested in seeing the review.

Short review: Read it.

I hate on Sabean a lot around here, so it seems only fair that I admit a few of my mistakes. I encourage others to follow my lead. While this means acknolweding some of Sabean's better moves, it doesn't mean you have to stop hating Sabean -- even a broken clock can fleece the Pirates twice a day. But it's good for this site that we all realize we don't know everything, PECOTA isn't God, there's room for nuance and we should be humble in our opinions.

So, here they are, my top 3 I-know-nothing-about-baseball moments.

1. Dustan Mohr. I thought he'd turned the corner. I thought he'd give us much-needed patience. I puked in my mouth when we let him leave over, like, $850,000. Then he had a .280 OPS in Coors. Then he got 40 at-bats in 2006. Now he runs into walls for free, because he's not a viable major leaguer. Whoops! I know nothing about baseball.
2. Matt Morris. Hated the deal the day it was done. Hated it all last year, and have been bad-mouthing Morris roughly three times per diary this season. But given what an average starter is worth these days, he has arguably justified the contract with this half-season alone, assuming he stays at least healthy for the rest of the deal. And, yes, I'll now admit, he probaby has at least as much trade value as Sidney Ponson did three years ago. I asked somebody the other day who would start for the Giants if we had to win one game, and it struck me that Morris is a viable choice. So it goes -- i know very little about baseball.
3. I was so excited to trade Felix Rodriguez for one of those mythical "professional hitters," especially one with such exemplary patience. Well, that'll be Ledee when you say goodbye, that'll be Ledee when you make me cry. You say he freakin' sucks, I know it's a lie, but that'll be Ledee when we die.

Start 2-7, then go 10-1. Yes, I know, it's probably chance, but I've been wondering whether some team characteristics might lead to streakiness and, if there are, whether they're positive or negative, and what it might say about our Giants. For instance, it seems like a winning streak relies on not having a very soft back of the rotation. Good fourth and fifth starters mean being in every game. That'd be a positive.

Any thoughts? I just got this response at a BP chat, but I bet the collective wisdom of the chroniclers might shed more insight.

lyricalkiller (The OC): The Giants have been ridiculously streaky so far. Maybe it's just sample, but are there factors that would make a team prone to streakiness, and would they be positive or negative qualities?

Dan Fox: What comes to mind to me is the bullpen. They have an inordinate amount of control over tight games and so a bad bullpen can blow games that were otherwise won and a good one can keep your team in there and allow them to just get over the top. That said, I don't know of any studies that show this particular relationship or any other based on team attributes.

I think for the most part team streaks, just like hitter's streakiness, can be explained by chance.

Will Carroll's Team Health Reports have six Giants positions players in Red. Only the Nationals (with 5) had more than 3. The two players in green are the two I least want to see at bat, Winn and Feliz.

Sorry, don't mean to be a Debbie Downer.

Here's the upside: The Giants have such great interchangeability that an injury to any position besides shortstop (and duh Left Field) seems relatively easily covered up by mixing and matching guys like Feliz, AUrilia, Klesko, Linden, Frandsen. And the rotation has two greens, two yellows and whoever is pitching in the fifth slot. So that's good.

http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-dodgers21nov21,0,2185664.story?coll=la-home-sports

Two notable notes about the Dodgers search for power:
"Carlos Lee has told the Dodgers that he doesn't want to play on the West Coast."
And,
"Colletti reiterated that he has no interest in signing Barry Bonds."

But the real laugher: "This man gets on base an awful lot," Colletti said of Pierre.

Link

Felipe Alou finished last, dead last, behind even Dusty Baker. I think most people would agree there is some small stathead disfavor of the Giants, but still.

But still.

Bonds finished 15th in MVP; Schmidt 16th in Cy Young; Cain sixth in ROY. Durham was 45th in MVP, which seems a shame. Chase Utley, whose raw numbers look an awful lot like Durham's, finished sixth. As I argued earlier this year, I thought Durham deserved some downballot mention.

Here's the outcome of that contest where guys could play fantasy baseball to get a job in the Giants front office:

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylt=Ar7_miw6d5B2BI.61xmbhV8RvLYF?slug=jp-agneta082506&prov=yho o&type=lgns

Not a lot about the job, sounds like he's making a lot of coffee. "He is just an intern, 30 years old now, and the internship is set to finish after a year. ... As much as he would love to hook on with the Giants, he's not banking on it, by any means, because while Agneta knows how tough it is to crack the business, it might be even tougher to stay."

Obviously Ray Durham isn't a top-of-the-ballot MVP guy. But looking at the dearth of stars, easpecially at premium positions, and the lack of legitamate contenders, I'm wondering whether Durham might finish in the top ... 10?

He's the only source of offense, at a premium position, in a team that might have meaningful games in September.

Who is more likely to get votes?
Pujols
Beltran
Soriano
Utley
Howard
Reyes
Berkman

Maybes:
M. Cabrera?
Mccann?
Hoffman?
Adrian Gonzales?
Nomar?
Bill Hall?
A. Jones?
D. Wright?

I'm thinking top 10.
Thoughts?