So, if you're a boxing fan and I assume you all are, don't watch this unless you actually enjoy getting mad.

The really egregious part begins around the 2:10 mark.

A few thoughts on this.

First, Colin Cowherd may be the perfect manifestation of everything that's wrong with American sports fandom today. He perfectly embodies the Brett Favre/Derek Jeter/Kobe-vs-Lebron/ESPN celebrity starf***er mentality, and he does it unashamed.

Second, we all know that boxing has a lot of problems in this day and age. The leaders of the sport need to do a better job at marketing, they need to get corruption out of the sport, etc. We all agree on that. But you know what? Even if boxing put its own house perfectly in order, it would have to contend with the fact that most American sports fans are just plain stupid. There are at least three intertwined strains of thinking in the mass culture that would present huge problems for boxing no matter what it did.

1. American sports fans only care about American athletes, and not only that, they are conditioned to assume that American athletes are always the best no matter what. If athletes in a sport appear to disprove that preconceived notion in proportions greater than those you see in, say, baseball, then American sports fans will either lose interest in the sport or assume there's something wrong with the sport. You can see this play out to a lesser degree in men's tennis. Even though this might be the greatest era in the entire history of that sport, the popularity of the sport in America is tepid at best. But at least men's tennis players tend to be European and speak English. What hope does a sport like boxing have with so many non-English speakers in its elite?

2. The Cotto-Pacquiao fight is a great ambassador for the sport. So are fights like Vazquez-Marquez (which SC wrote about recently), Marquez-Pacquiao, Cotto-Mosley, etc. But you know what? I am fully convinced that if you'd forced Colin Cowherd and Michelle Beadle to sit in front of a TV set for Marquez-Vazquez III, they would not have enjoyed it! When they complain about "small man" boxing being too "technical" in the above clip, they're not just saying they need offense and KOs in order to like the sport. What they want are haymakers like the ones you used to see in the Rocky movies. The casual American sports fan's attention span is too short to enjoy even the most technically proficient offense-oriented boxing.

3. Regarding the MMA-oriented comments in the clip: there is a class of serious MMA fan out there whose members are really knowledgeable about their sport and who are fans because they really appreciate the finer points of MMA and who don't see a need to take a dump on boxing. I take it that the people who post over at the sister SBN blog fit into that category. But they are outnumbered by hordes of brainless casual fans of MMA who have no appreciation for the intricacies of MMA and who only prefer MMA to boxing because MMA is "in" and boxing is "out" or because MMA is "cool" and boxing is "uncool." It's no different than the mentality of middle school kids who sneer at their classmates who wear the wrong brands of clothes. These are the same people who probably still think that Kimbo Slice is the Tiger Woods of MMA because of stuff they vaguely recall hearing around the water cooler at work. It's incredibly aggravating, but I don't think there's much that the leaders of boxing can do to combat that mentality because it isn't based on anything rational or factual. All you can do is wait for boxing to come back into style.

Since Cole Hamels' 2009 season has been covered in some depth on TGP, I thought people might find this Andy Martino blog post to be of interest.

A few thoughts:

First, Martino's criticism of Neyer is entirely fair here. I'm a longtime fan of Neyer's work and I actually agree with his ultimate conclusion about Hamels, but it can't be denied that he always has been and continues to be one of the most egregious straw-manners in the business, and that's exactly what he does to Salisbury in the linked post. Neyer could have just made his point instead of feeling like he needed to first find some sportswriter to cast as his foil. This is a piss-fight that could have been avoided.

Second, I wonder if Martino's belief that certain things have gone "wrong" with Hamels' season is necessarily at odds with the view that most of us share here - that Hamels' peripherals in 2009 are similar to his peripherals in 2008. Maybe there's a way to synthesize both viewpoints. For example, I wonder if Hamels' peripherals have changed at all as the season has gone along. If they have, that could support the "Verducci" hypothesis - that he's been wearing out as his innings have accumulated. Just from eyeballing the game log, his home run rate sure seems to have skyrocketed in the postseason, at least. His pitch counts have also definitely increased lately - are pitch counts necessarily a function of luck?

Third, on more of a big-picture note: while I understand that throughout the history of baseball, pitchers have never shown an ability to sustain high BABIPs and low BABIPs for very long periods of time, it begs the question: is that necessarily because outlying BABIPs are purely a matter of random chance, or could it be because outlying BABIPs are affectable by player adjustments? I don't know if there's any way to conclusively answer this question, but my initial reaction is that both possibilities are equally plausible.

So there's a real possibility that we will end this season in a three-way tie with both the Dodgers *and* the Cardinals for best record in the NL. If Baseball Reference is to be believed (and if I'm reading it correctly), then we will get homefield throughout. The Dodgers will get the "3" seed and be our opponents in the first round [edit: start the DS round on the road against the Cardinals, while we play the Rockies - unless of course the Braves catch the Rockies, in which case we will open against the Dodgers at home].

The tied Club that has a better record against both of the other Division champions during the championship season will be deemed to have the higher winning percentage. The tie between the two remaining Clubs shall be broken as follows:

The first tiebreaker will be head-to-head competition between the two Clubs during the championship season. If the Clubs remain tied, then the tied Club with the higher winning percentage in intradivision games during the championship season. If the Clubs remain tied, then the tied Club with the higher winning percentage in intraleague games during the championship season. If the Clubs remain tied, then the tied Club with the higher winning percentage in the last half of intraleague games during the championship season. If the Clubs remain tied, then the tied Club with the higher winning percentage in the last half plus one of intraleague games during the championship season. This process will be followed game-by-game until the tie is broken.

If none of the three tied Clubs has a better record against both of the other Division champions during the championship season, then the Club deemed to have the higher winning percentage shall be:

The tied Club with the higher winning percentage in head-to-head competition among the tied Clubs during the championship season. If the Clubs remain tied, then the tied Club with the higher winning percentage in intradivision games during the championship season. If the Clubs remain tied, then the tied Club with the higher winning percentage in intraleague games during the championship season. If the Clubs remain tied, then the tied Club with the higher winning percentage in the last half of intraleague games during the championship season. If the Clubs remain tied, then the tied Club with the higher winning percentage in the last half plus one of intraleague games during the championship season. This process will be followed game-by-game until the tie is broken.

Maybe I'm just distracted here, but I'm finding that rule to be completely inscrutable. So somebody check my work.

Here's how the season series (serieses?) between the three teams went this year:

Dodgers 4 - Phillies 3
Phillies 4 - Cardinals 1
Cardinals 5 - Dodgers 2

I've done a lot of yapping around here about how the Red Sox haven't made a single midseason prospects-for-veteran trade in the past decade, and how that precedent should encourage us to proceed with *extreme caution* as we consider a trade for Roy Halladay today, as it was set by perhaps the best-run franchise in the sport.

Since I had a little time to kill, I thought this deserved a fuller analysis. Let's take a closer look at the Red Sox of 2005, the year after their first World Series victory. Here are the basic facts.

Despite winning a title, going into 2005 the Red Sox had not yet become the juggernaut and model franchise they are today. For one thing, the 2005 Red Sox were freakin' old. Their three best position players were Manny Ramirez (age 33), David Ortiz (age 29), and Jason Varitek (age 33). Pitching-wise, Pedro Martinez signed with the Mets in the 2004-05 offseason, and Curt Schilling suffered through an injury-plagued 5.69 ERA season at age 38. The average age of Boston's starting lineup and its five best starting pitchers (not including Schilling) was 32.

Also, the Red Sox had a good, but not yet elite, farm system. Here's Baseball America's analysis of their farm system as of November 10, 2004. Their top ten prospects were, in order: Hanley Ramirez, Brandon Moss, Jonathan Papelbon, Jon Lester, Anibal Sanchez, Dustin Pedroia, Luis Soto, Kelly Shoppach, Abe Alvarez, and Manny Delcarmen. They also had a young Kevin Youkilis, although he played too much as a part-timer in 2004 to qualify as a "prospect" (99 OPS+ in 248 AB at age 25 in '04).

Finally, on the field, the 2005 Red Sox were a very good, but not dominant, team. While they led the American League in scoring, they had the AL's fourth-worst team ERA. They ended the season with a 95-67 record (.586 winning percentage), and their five-year winning percentage coming into 2005 was .560. (By way of comparison, the Phillies have a .579 winning percentage so far in 2009, and their five-year winning percentage coming into the season was .543.)

Now here's where the comparison breaks down a little: I don't remember if any bigtime pitchers were on the block in July 2005, but none were traded. In any event, the Red Sox made no major trades at the deadline. At the end of the regular season, three teams were tied for the second-best record in the league at 95-67 (Yankees, Red Sox, and Angels). The Red Sox were assigned the wild card slot on a tiebreaker, and played the 99-63 White Sox in the first round. The White Sox swept them out, 3-0. Game 1 was a blowout, but Games 2 and 3 were close ones that basically could have gone either way.

What I observe is that despite having an aging team with real weaknesses going down the stretch, and despite having a fair number of prospects and other young unproven players that had real trade value, the Red Sox didn't panic. There was no sign that they believed they needed to sacrifice the future for the present to take advantage of some "window of opportunity." Instead, they stayed calm and stayed the course. While they lost in the playoffs that year, they lived to fight another day. And as we all know, they eventually went on to win another World Series two years later, and continue to be a franchise that's in great shape for the long term, likely to contend as far as the eye can see. Some of the most crucial contributors on both the 2007 team and the 2009 team include Youkilis, Papelbon, Lester, Pedroia, and Delcarmen.

[Side note: Yes, it's true that the Red Sox later traded away Hanley Ramirez and Anibal Sanchez. However, they did not do so at the trade deadline, but during the offseason when the market is much more sane. They also traded those guys not for an aging veteran who had declared that he was dead set on testing the FA market in the near future, but rather, for a young stud pitcher, Josh Beckett, who hadn't yet even reached his prime years and who was open to signing - and ultimately did sign - a contract extension (not to mention they also got Mike Lowell). It also must be noted that this trade happened during Theo Epstein's brief hiatus from the GM position with the Red Sox. Epstein might not have made that trade himself, and although the Red Sox probably aren't sorry about it today, who's to say that they still wouldn't have won a World Series if instead of Beckett, they'd had Hanley Ramirez with his 145 OPS+ at shortstop in place of Julio Lugo? That lineup would have been downright terrifying.]

So, there are some real parallels here. In 2005, Boston was older than we are in 2009. Their pitching was worse than ours is in 2009. The quality of their farm system was comparable to ours in 2009. It's true that they didn't have the opportunity to go after a Halladay-type in 2005. But let's say they had had that opportunity, and the guy they acquired had then left a year-and-a-half later. Maybe that guy would have brought them a championship during his brief tenure there... but maybe he wouldn't have. What's clear is that despite their advanced age, the Red Sox did not just have a short window of opportunity to win. To the contrary, they were a team on the verge of a very long, extended period of title contention. They acted like they could be good forever, and today, they do, in fact, have a real shot at being good forever. But if they didn't have Papelbon, Lester, or Beckett (who I see as being closer to a continuation of Ramirez the prospect, than to a "cashing in" of Ramirez the prospect, for the reasons mentioned above), that wouldn't be the case.

The typical counterargument to all this is that we can't emulate the Red Sox because they're richer and smarter than we are. But that's kind of a fallacy. Yes, the Red Sox are richer than us, but the margin isn't that huge. In April, Forbes magazine ranked them as the third richest team in MLB, with $269 million in annual revenue. But we weren't that far behind: the Phillies are #7 in MLB, with $216 million in annual revenue. More to the point, while a $53 million difference in revenue is big, what's even bigger is the difference between Boston's competition and our competition. The Yankees have $375 million in annual revenue, but the Mets are more than a hundred million dollars behind them at $261 million. Also, how do you think the Red Sox got to be so rich? It wasn't always thus. While the Phillies will never have the nationwide following Boston has, they can become a much bigger revenue-generator if they have a sustained period of success. The cachet that comes from being a "name" team is quite valuable in terms of merchandising, road gate, and so forth. That gap between us and Boston can close to some degree.

As for whether or not we're smarter than the Red Sox: I'll concede that I think much more highly of Theo Epstein than Ruben Amaro (though Amaro's done some good things in his short time as the man in charge - I do think Ruben's smarter than a lot of other GMs out there who aren't named Theo Epstein). But I think the right way to approach this "problem" of "not being smart enough" is to act smarter and to advocate that the team act smarter, not to intentionally advocate that the team act dumb on the theory that if they don't, then it'll be fated to act even dumber than that down the road.

So all I'm trying to say here is: Don't give up too much for Halladay. We can win titles after 2010-11 if we just act like we want to win titles after 2011. Don't just "go for it." Don't just "git 'ur done" (stupidest, most annoying phrase ever). Either make a trade that's defensible on its own merits irrespective of the time element, or don't make a trade at all. Time is not of the essence. Do not overpay talent out of a misplaced sense of urgency. There is no window.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/playoffs2008/news/story?id=3658645

So there's rain in the forecast for Saturday night. Major League Baseball, in its infinite wisdom, has announced that if there's a rainout that day, all three games in Philadelphia will be pushed back a day but Games 6 and 7 will not be pushed back. The teams will instead just lose their off-day on Tuesday.

Which means that there would be games on five consecutive days. The available starters for Game 7 would then be J.A. Happ and Short Rest Moyer for the Phillies, Edwin Jackson and Short Rest Garza for the Rays.

This strikes me as bad news.

Promoted from the FanPosts.  Frankly I relish being the "underdog" here (as much as a 92 win team can be an underdog to an 84 game winner). -- WholeCamels

So did anyone else get a chance to hear Eduardo Perez of ESPN Baseball Tonight share his brilliant insights on why the Dodgers are sure to beat our Phils in this upcoming series?  If not, here's a brief transcript.

RAVECH:  Is this gonna be a long one?  Should it be a long one if it's played by both teams to their abilities?

PEREZ:  I think it's gonna be a six-game series.  You look at what the Dodgers have - they have an identity now.  They can go into a series now and know exactly what their lineup's gonna be.  They don't have to be going into the clubhouse looking at that lineup card: "Am I playing or am I not?"  That's something the Phillies are still trying to figure out.  Pedro Feliz doesn't know if he's gonna be in there on a daily basis.  We saw Burrell at the end - at the last game of the series - they didn't know if he was going to be hitting fifth or sixth.  The identity factor is gonna be key.  Players know when they go to sleep that they're gonna be in there the next day.

I don't know about you but that sure has me convinced. All hope is lost!

FWIW, Krukker also chose the Dodgers, but said that if the Phillies bats start performing, then the series will go seven and be a toss-up. According to Kruk, the Phillies' offense isn't performing well enough now because all it's doing is hitting home runs. Over on TBS, Curtis Granderson thinks the Dodgers have a clear edge. Eckersley thought it was a close call but also went with the Dodgers. I think Ripken waffled but I don't have a clear recollection of what he said.