Okay, full disclosure: As a Red Sox fan, I want the Phillies to win the Series, period. Heck, there's even a good reason for that one, as a pure fan of the game. That reason, of course, is Chase Utley. With two home runs in Game 5, Utley now has five homers in the World Series, tying the single-series record set by Reggie Jackson in 1977--a Series the Yankees won. If Utley ties or even breaks Reggie's record in a losing effort, it just wouldn't seem right. (Then again, the 1960 Yankees still hold most of the records for team offensive production in a single Series, and they lost that in seven games, thanks to three double-digit wins and four losses by three runs or less. So maybe that's not important.)

Here's why the Phillies need to win Game 6: a return to the way things used to be.

Now, I may be young, but I'm not so young that I don't remember a Series that went seven games. That last happened in 2002, and although I probably wasn't paying attention to that one, I do remember 2001, probably the best Series of my lifetime the period of my lifetime that I would reasonably be expected to remember (the only debate when limiting it to my lifetime would be 1991 vs. 2001, but I was just a toddler in '91.)

I'm talking about pitchers making three starts in a series. I'm a fan of the history of the game, and way back when, three-man rotations in the postseason were the norm (and four-man rotations in the regular season, but that's besides the point.) And when three-man rotations in the postseason were common, a pitcher would pitch Games 1, 4, and 7. (Okay, okay, that actually happened in the 2001 World Series, too, although the Diamondbacks did use four starters--Schilling in 1, 4, and 7; Johnson in 2 and 6; Brian Anderson in 3; and Miguel Batista in 5). If this series ends tonight, we're denied that. But if the Phillies send it to Game 7, C.C. Sabathia makes his return for Game 7. I'd rather see the Phillies win that game, too, but either way, Game 7 is what I want to see.

It really does seem amazing that last night's Dodgers-Cardinals game was the first postseason game ever in which the outcome was absolutely, positively, unquestionably altered by an error. The beauty of baseball is that until the final out is made, you always have a chance to come back. The Dodgers were the first team ever to trail a game with two outs in the ninth inning or later and come back to win after an error on a ball in play on what would have been the game-ending out. What about other famous errors? Way back in 1912, the New York Giants scored in the top of the tenth inning of the decisive game, only to be undone by an error in center field and a foul pop-up that neither the first baseman, second baseman, nor pitcher could get to, but the original error came on the first batter of the bottom of the tenth and the latter wasn't a ball in play. 1986 World Series, everyone remembers that one--Mookie Wilson's grounder going right through Bill Buckner's legs.Of course, even though that was with two outs and it was in the tenth inning, it doesn't count for two reasons, one of which is only sometimes forgotten and one of which is almost always forgotten. The one that is remembered more often is that the Mets weren't trailing at the time; the tying run had already scored on Stanley's wild pitch earlier in Wilson's at-bat, so a third out would have merely taken the game to the 11th inning. The second, more commonly forgotten reason is that due to Wilson's speed, Buckner's bad legs, and Stanley's failure to cover first, it also wouldn't have been the third out; rather, it was an infield single by Wilson and an error by Buckner allowing Ray Knight to score from second. Had Buckner played it cleanly, chances are the bottom of the tenth continues with Wilson at first, Knight at third, and Johnson batting. So, yeah, that doesn't work.

The net result of this? Disappointment for Cards fans, joy for Dodgers fans, and possible sighs of relief for TV executives and/or Red Sox/Angels/Rockies/Phillies fans. Thus far, the games have been staggered such that no two games will be going on simultaneously unless a game other than the last one of the night exceeds 3:30 in length. This is the main reasoning for staggering the starts of the series and for doing that weird thing with the "choose your series" in one league, and it works fine up to a point. Wednesday, we had both NLDS Game 1s and one ALDS Game 1. Thursday, the other ALDS Game 1 and both NLDS Game 2s. Tonight, both ALDS Game 2s. Tomorrow, both NLDS Game 3s. Sunday, however, is scheduled for the NLDS Game 4s and the ALDS Game 3s, so if neither NLDS ends in a sweep, there would be 4 games on one day. (This is also likely why they added the off-day between Games 4 and 5, which wasn't always there.) The options would be something like this:

1. Schedule 2 games at the same time. This would not sit well with the TV executives.
2. Continue as normal with a quadruple-header. This would be equally problematic, as the 3-1/2 hour differential would mean the late game would start 10-1/2 hours after the earliest. Even if they started the first one at 12:07 Eastern (because they like using sevens, for some reason), the last game still wouldn't start until 10:37 Eastern...and worse still, due to the way the teams are set up this year, no game will be played in the Pacific Time Zone on the day of the quadruple-header. Outside of World Series games in the Eastern Time Zone, who ever heard of a baseball game with a scheduled start time after 8:30 local? Also, I doubt they'd want to go with a 12:07 start time for the earliest game on a Sunday, especially not in Boston.
3. Still keep things staggered, but decrease the differential a little. This is probably the best option, as they could go with a 12:37 start time in Boston, then a 3:37 (2:37 local) in St. Louis, a 6:37 (5:37 local) in Minneapolis, and a 9:37 (7:37 local) in Denver. If the Cardinals win Game 3, they'll have to do one of these, but for now, there's still a chance that Sunday will be a normal tripleheader.

Speaking of time, the Dodgers' first win over the Cards set a record, too. It was the longest 9-inning game in LDS history, clocking in at 3:54. It's not a postseason record, as that belongs to Game 3 of the 2004 ALCS, clocking in at 4:20, but it's a record for the round. (And when you consider the fact that 3:54 was good enough to set a record for a nine-inning game, you have to figure that the 3:30 time slot they initially assign to the games is usually sufficient as long as the game doesn't go into extras.

Even when the races are dull, they're interesting. This year marks the third straight year that a one-game playoff will be required after 7 straight years without one. While the first half of the decade had a few tight races as well--the 2003 NL wild card was a multi-team scrum, IIRC, that the eventual World Champion Marlins were considered a long shot to come out of on top, and if I remember correctly, the Cubs, who ended up winning their division, were leading that race for much of the final weeks; no division in the NL was won by more than 2 games in 2001, with the wild card having the same record as their division's champion--but the second half of the decade has produced some real memorable ones. There's 2005, where with three days remaining, the White Sox clinched their division in the strangest way possible, holding a 3-game lead over Cleveland, who they were to play in the final three, while Cleveland was merely tied for the wild card lead; the White Sox were assured a playoff spot because the team Cleveland was tied with, Boston, was also playing their division leader, the Yankees, and were only one game back, so were they to sweep, they'd be outright division champions and Chicago and Cleveland would still both be in the playoffs were Cleveland to sweep. The NL wild card also came down to the final day that year. Then there was 2006, and the Twins' unlikely division championship. Prior to the final weekend of the season, the Twins had led the division for all of about maybe six hours, when Detroit lost a day game to drop into a virtual tie, percentage points behind; Minnesota lost that night. By the time the Twins tied it up with three days remaining, both teams had already clinched playoff spots, so the Twins, lacking the tiebreaker, still weren't really in first place. Minnesota lost the first two and won the third; Detroit got swept in rather painstaking fashion, by the last-place Royals, who incidentally lost the #1 pick in the draft as a result, finishing 1 game better than the Devil Rays. Over on the National League side, 2006 was the year of Houston's mad dash that came up short. With 12 days remaining, the Cardinals seemed to have the NL Central locked up, holding a 7 game lead over second place Cincinnati. They then went on a 7-game losing streak that included a sweep at the hands of the Astros, and so 9 days later, the Reds were still in it, 2.5 back, but now in third place, with the Astros a mere half game behind the Cardinals. Had that run been completed, all of this other "history-making", with the Mets-Phillies in '07 and Twins-Tigers this year, would have been moot--8.5 games in 12 days. Alas, it was not meant to be. (Another division was decided by a tiebreaker that year, the Padres over the wild-card Dodgers). 2007, of course, saw the Mets cough up the NL East and the Rockies win 13 of 14 to force a one-game tiebreaker for the wild-card, but what was forgotten in all of that was that had the Rockies won the one game they lost in that span, there would still have been a tiebreaker--between the Diamondbacks, the team that beat them and that won the division, and the Padres. The race was that close. Compared to all of that, the past two years have been relatively mundane. Hell, this year, almost every race was decided with nearly a week to spare--and yet, we still have a one-game playoff.

The title, by the way, was Detroit manager Jim Leyland's response when asked if he was concerned about Rick Porcello starting such an important game at such a young age.

Watching the ESPN Sunday Night game. The umpires just overturned the end of the game, an apparent walkoff RBI fielder's choice by Ryan Ludwick turning into an inning-ending double play due to Matt Holliday getting called for interference. It was the right call; Holliday was nowhere near second base with his slide. Egregiously bad move by Holliday. On the topic of ESPN Sunday Night Baseball, they're having an all-time first: They're holding the game in the afternoon next week. This is because the game is Red Sox @ Yankees, and New York has a high Jewish population, so with Yom Kippur starting at sundown on Sunday, they didn't want to inconvenience discriminate against some of the local fans by switching the game to the evening. Because the real heavy-duty Jews spend the entire day in synagogue on Yom Kippur. On that topic, I only just now realized that I missed Rosh Hashanah, and I'm quite unhappy about it.

On this morning's topic, no new partial locks, and no playoff spots clinched, but the Nationals have wrapped up 5th place in the NL East, and the Mets 4th. There was one elimination today, Astros from the NL wild card, and there's still a chance for one more, Brewers from the Central should the Cards win it in extras.

We're coming into the final stages. The Yankees are on the edge of locking up a playoff spot, which could happen as early as today should they win and the Rangers lose. Also almost ready: the first "partial position lock", a condition where a team cannot catch the team immediately in front of them in the division standings. A full position lock, of course, is when a team knows exactly where they will place in the division. Wait...actually, there's already been a partial position lock, over in the NL East, between the third-place Braves and the fourth-place Mets. That appears to have happened...after the Mets lost to the Braves on Thursday, actually, which was the Mets' 84th loss, while the Marlins and Braves both had 78 wins and the season series against the Mets already in hand. There is a possible full position lock today (two, actually)--if the Mets beat the Nats, it will lock the Nats into 5th place and the Mets into 4th. Other potential partial position locks: A Giants win or a Padres loss will drive a lock between them (SF wins + SD losses currently totals 162, but the Padres lead the season series 9-6), and, amazingly, a Red Sox win and a Rays loss knocks the Rays out of the wild card race and guarantees the Red Sox at least second place in the AL East. (Chicago can't lock up third or better yet, even with a win and a Cleveland loss, because their lead in the season series is only 8-7.)

At the beginning of the month, the Tigers looked like a hot team, someone you wouldn't want to face in the playoffs. Now? They're looking like they might not even make it! It's starting to look like it will be 2004 redux in the American League--Yankees over Twins, Red Sox over Angels, Red Sox over Yankees. (I may be a tad biased on that ALCS prediction, but the Red Sox do hold the advantage in the season series, 9-6.) The Tigers have gone ice cold and are just 2 games ahead of the Twins. It looks like an interesting postseason is coming up.

And here I thought I'd just be updating the last entry when the Phillies-Mets game went final. PEDRO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Seriously, holy ****. 8 shutout innings, more strikeouts (7) than hits (6)--okay, more strikeouts than hits is still not so odd, even at this stage of his career--all that's amazing, but what really impresses me is that pitch count! 130 pitches, in 2009? From the guy that everyone knew couldn't be left out there past the 100-pitch mark all the way back in the 2003 ALCS? (Thanks again for that, Grady. Moron.) Indeed, it is the most pitches he's thrown in an outing since the 2003 ALDS against Oakland. And now, the Mets are toast. It's going to be a fun day; my dad's side of the family are all Mets fans, and I believe some good-natured ribbing is in order. (I should also give my sister a heads-up; she's dating a Mets fan right now. On second thought, who cares if he's unhappy; he's a Dallas Cowboys fan. Yecch.)

Perhaps the most fun part of tracking the mathematical eliminations (Baltimore was the first, by the way, ahead of Washington by a few hours) is the little weird things, like when a team goes nearly a week on the brink of elimination without falling off. Last year, it was Washington that pulled one of those weird runs, going on an inexplicable 7-game winning streak while the Mets and Phillies (who were close enough to one another that either one probably could've provided the finishing blow) seemed unable to win on the same night. (Okay, I think they played each other for part of that stretch). This year, it was the Royals. They entered Tuesday night's games with 85 losses and the number of head-to-head games between the Tigers, White Sox and Twins ensuring that at least one would reach 77 wins, leaving them with an elimination number of 1--one loss or a total of three wins against outside competition by the top 3 would knock them out.

They lasted four days on the brink, sweeping Detroit in a three-game series while the White Sox and Twins could only manage to go 2-4, then winning again on Friday while the top three went 0-3. As a result, they only managed to last one day less than the Tampa Bay Rays, who were still considered somewhat of a playoff contender as of a week ago. Yes, that's right: the Rays' two losses today, combined with the Yankees avoiding the sweep by Baltimore, means they will officially not repeat as AL East champions--and that they were outlasted by such titans as the Cleveland Indians (61-81) and, at least by a few hours, the New York Mets (63-80). It might just be only another hour or so before the Mets hit the deck for good--Colorado's already got 82 wins, and if Philly wins the ongoing game, it will be their 82nd win combined with the Mets' 81st loss, so that's a simultaneous elimination. Of Sports Illustrated's preseason pick for World Champions. While 24 teams would still have at least one avenue open to them.

Let that sink in. One of the most respected sports magazines in the country went with a team that may end up as just the sixth team to be eliminated from the playoffs completely (Washington, Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Kansas City and Arizona were the first five, more or less in that order; Tampa Bay, Toronto, Oakland, Cincinnati, and San Diego are down to only the wild card as an option, while Cleveland only has the division.)

Yes, this game is nuts. But not as nuts as picking the Mets to win the World Series.

To greet us, we have Toronto-Texas. Last night was a wild game, Toronto scoring the first 11 runs of the game and then letting the lead dwindle to a lone run before a 7-run ninth restored the blowout, 18-10 the final. So, what makes this the stretch run? Is it the roster expansion? The fact that anyone not on a team's roster yet is ineligible for the postseason with that team? Nope, it's...wait...by my definition, it's not the stretch run yet. In my opinion, the stretch run begins with the first elimination: when the first bottom-of-the-barrel team becomes mathematically ineligible to take either their division or the wild card. Granted, in all likelihood, if you mashed enough teams together, the Nationals probably have been eliminated from the NL Wild Card race, but this can't be confirmed, and they haven't been mathematically eliminated from the division race quite yet. It will take another loss by the Nats themselves to do it outright tonight due to the Braves and Marlins playing each other; the schedule-based projection would need two of the top three or three of the top four to win against outside competition to do it without a Nats loss. However, with the Nats on the West Coast, even if they do lose, they may not get the dubious distinction of first elimination: the Yankees play Baltimore with a chance to knock them out of the AL East race. Yes, the status of baseball in the Beltway is sad. Meanwhile, the Pirates are just five losses away from their record-breaking 17th straight losing season. With the NL West looking like the hottest race around (the Dodgers added Jon Garland and Jim Thome, while the Rockies picked up Jose Contreras and the Giants added Brad Penny), it's going to be an interesting September.

Interesting week in baseball; I think the "three-ring circus" metaphor applies. The third ring: Mark Buehrle. Coming off of a perfect game (and 28 consecutive batters retired dating back to the final one of his previous start), Buehrle retired the first 17 batters he faced to break the record of 41 straight shared by former San Francisco Giant Jim Barr and current Buehrle teammate Bobby Jenks before giving up a two-out walk. One batter later, he lost the no-hitter, and one batter after that, he lost the shutout and the Sox' recently-earned 1-0 lead. He then proceeded to retire only one of the five batters he faced in the seventh inning and got charged with 5 runs, the last scoring as an inherited runner after he'd been relieved, and the loss. When it's over, it's really over. The second ring: trades. The Pirates continue to sell, sending Jack Wilson and Ian Snell to the Mariners for Ronny Cedeno, Jeff Clement, and three minor leaguers, then swapping Freddy Sanchez straight-up for a minor leaguer from the Giants, and finally shipping John Grabow and Tom Gorzelanny to the Cubs for three minor leaguers. Weirdest of all, they sent a Double-A pitcher to Toronto for future considerations. The Mariners, however, are not quite so sure they are buyers, sending Jarrod Washburn to Detroit for two minor league pitchers a minor leaguer and a rookie pitcher--but then again, Washburn's trade value is at its peak, as he's having a career year. The Dodgers acquire George Sherrill from the O's for two minor leaguers and send Claudio Vargas to the Brewers for one minor leaguer, while Oakland also continues to sell, sending Orlando Cabrera to the Twins for a minor leaguer. The big deal, of course, is Cliff Lee being sent to the Phillies along with Ben Francisco in exchange for four minor leaguers. And the center ring: PEDs. Two more of the 104 names from 2003 leak out--then-teammates Manny Ramirez and David Ortiz. Papi releases a statement that he was "blindsided" and that he'll find out what it is he's been accused of taking, and when he does, he'll share it with the team and the public, saying he wants to be open and not make excuses. Um...right. Sounds kind of like an excuse to me. Other members of the 2003 Red Sox weighed in as well. Nomar Garciaparra, in Boston as a member of the visiting A's, dropped the bombshell that because players were led to believe there would be no names attached to the tests, only numbers, some players opted to not take the test and just be put down as positive so as to drive up the number towards the mandatory 5% because they wanted testing. Excuse me for a moment, news just broke that Victor Martinez has been traded to the Boston Red Sox for Justin Masterson and two Single-A pitchers. Back to the PED issue, Garciaparra also said that one team, the Chicago White Sox, he thinks there were like 7 or 8 guys who did that. Meanwhile, completely unprompted, Bronson Arroyo said he "wouldn't be surprised" if he was one of the 104, saying that he took the steroid precursor androstenedione (which wasn't banned at the time) but stopped after he'd heard rumors that due to lax production standards, some of it might be laced with steroids, as well as taking amphetamines, which were not banned until 2006. This is what is generally known as "damage control"--preemptive action in case something unsavory comes out. Arroyo spent most of the 2003 season with the Red Sox' Triple-A affiliate in Pawtucket (where he pitched a perfect game) rather than with the major league club, so this all definitely seems suspect, and introducing the idea of the then-legal andro that may have been tainted, well, it's creating an excuse before there's even anything to be making an excuse for! And yet, it's still the first time I can remember a player admitting using anything without being prompted by a news story about their drug use breaking since Jose Canseco himself. Speaking of Canseco, he now says that a member of the Hall of Fame used, but refuses to say who it is. Trying to drum up publicity for a third book, perhaps?

Update: Red Sox making trade moves again! I had a feeling when the Red Sox got Adam LaRoche that he might not be staying in Boston long, and sure enough, rumor has it that he'll be heading back to his former team, the Atlanta Braves, straight-up for Casey Kotchman.

Another Update: Scott Rolen from Blue Jays to Reds; no details yet. Wait, first detail is that Rolen has to waive a no-trade clause in order to make it happen.

Next update: Joe Beimel from Nats to Rockies for two minor leaguers; Jerry Hairston Jr. from Reds to Yankees for a minor leaguer. Also missed from previous days: Josh Anderson from Tigers to Royals for cash; Brian Anderson for Mark Kotsay straight-up; Ryan Garko from Indians to Giants for a minor leaguer.

Post-deadline news break number 1: Nick Johnson goes from Washington to Florida for a minor-league LHP.

Post-deadline news break number 2: Jake Peavy will be going to the White Sox, after all. Chicago tried to make this deal before and failed to convince Peavy to waive his no-trade clause, but this time, he apparently decided to relent. Clayton Richard, who was supposed to start for the White Sox tonight, was among the group that Chicago sent to San Diego, along with three minor leaguers, two of which have major league experience. Also, details are coming in on the Rolen deal, and Edwin Encarnacion is among the players Toronto will receive in return. Sounds like the trades have returned to the center ring, after all, even with Halladay still a Blue Jay.

Y'know, you'd think I would've been paying more attention; I had the MLB scoreboard up during class. You'd think it might have hit me that the 2:05 start was already in the bottom of the eighth by around 4:00. Hell, if it weren't for the rain in that morning golf pick, I'd have that game in SftC! All I know is that when I entered my car just past 4 PM Eastern, tuned to MLB Home Plate, I had been wondering what game to listen to, wondering if there was maybe a 4:05 start, and when I heard the guys on The Show talking about how hard it is to put 27 up, 27 down, I wondered if maybe they were interviewing someone who'd had a perfect game before. (The 10th anniversary of David Cone's perfecto was just five days ago, after all.) When I learned what they were talking about, I rushed over to the play-by-play and listened to the ninth inning in full. Never did find out if there were any 4:05 starts; I just listened to the postgame show the whole way home.

On April 18th, 2007, Mark Buehrle faced the minimum 27 batters in a game against the Rangers at U.S. Cellular Field, and it was a no-hitter but not a perfect game, as Sammy Sosa walked and was picked off of first. Today, Buerhle didn't need to pick anyone off. 27 Rays came to the plate, and all were out. Just listening to the final inning in the car, I was going nuts--and why shouldn't I? That catch by Dewayne Wise sounded amazing. I'm anxiously awaiting this evening's SportsCenter so I can actually see it. Wise was a defensive replacement, the first time this series he got to go in in that capacity because the first three games were all so close. Today, in Chicago, Mark Buehrle pitched the 18th perfect game in Major League history.