This is a surprising cut.  Should the Cardinals be interested?

Washington Post article here.

I'm tired of hearing about this being the lowest rated world series.  So was last year's.  And the 2000s have been lower than the 1990s.  That's not news.  But, to show this, I did a quick analysis using data from ESPN (see data below for years 1996-2006). I did a multiple regression regressing either Rating or Share on year (coded 1 = 1995 to 11 = 2005) and on # of games played. I deliberately excluded 2006 to pick up the trend by year to see where you'd expect 2006 to fall. The outcome is very simple:

Year is a highly significant predictor in both regressions despite the small sample.  # of games makes no difference.

Ratings are dropping 1/2 a point per year.

Share is dropping 1 point per year.

The upshot:  Thhe 2006 viewing results are right at what you'd expect given larger patterns in TV viewing (i.e., more shows, more use of the internet, etc.).

The aberrant World Series was 2004, which was well above the trend (technically, it's "residual error" is 1.6 standard deviations above what would be expected).  Thus, our Cardinals were in the most unexpectedly popular World Series in recent years; of course, credit for the level of interest is shared with a large Red Sox fan base and the mystique of an 80 year old curse. (It wasn't due to an exciting series.)

I'll go out on a limb and predict that next year's share will be about a point lower than this year's.  

The ESPN data are included below.

Year            Rating  Share   #Games
2006 (Fox)    10.1    17    5
2005 (Fox)    11.1    19    4
2004 (Fox)    15.8    25    4
2003 (Fox)    12.8    22    6
2002 (Fox)    11.9    20    7
2001 (Fox)    15.7    25    7
2000 (Fox)    12.4    21    5
1999 (NBC)    16    26    4
1998 (Fox)    14.1    24    4
1997 (NBC)    16.8    29    7
1996 (Fox)    17.4    29    6
1995 (Fox-ABC)    19.3    33    6

If you're not familiar with baseball-reference.com, you should check it out.  It has an amazing collection of historical statistics.  The 2006 season has been added.  And it is now time to admire the greatness that is Albert.  

One of the breakdowns the website offers is the top 10 players for various offensive statistics at different ages (21, 22, 23, etc.).  Here's the link to leaders at age 26:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/leaders_26_bat.shtml

Albert is all over the place, including many counting stats (e.g., doubles, home runs, total bases, extra base hits). His presence on the counting stats list is striking because Albert has far fewer plate appearances than most others since he started "late" (at 21), compared to guys like A-Rod.  (It would be nice to have a different type of leader page:  Leader based on number of years played (not age).  Albert would be even more insanely great by that cut.)

The leader page also gives you a sense of his "comparables" at this age, and it's an impressive group.  There are very few lucky, flash in the pan types in the lists--they're almost all hall of famers.  The blindingly obvious implication is that, at this sample size, Albert is in an undeniably elite group and the group as a whole has amazing overall careers.  Now it's about staying healthy.

Also check out his player page and his "comparables" through age 26 (bottom of the player page).