The best race in baseball

[JasonEvans]

Wow, it just cannot get any closer than it is right now. This is so exciting. The history books will be rewritten for this one.

I mean, Chipper versus Holliday for the batting crown. I am breathless watching it. Right now the Jones boy is at 338.613 while Matt is at 337.641. They are literally separated by 1 hit. If Holliday gets a hit in his next at bat, his average will jump to 338.709, putting him in the lead. This is so close that if Chipper goes 1-for-5 and Holliday goes 1-for-3, Holliday will be back in the lead.

Whew-- this is gonna be a nail-biter.

--Jason "ya'll didn't think I was talking about the Mets & Phils or the NL Wild Card or the Pads, Rockies, and DBacks did ya?" Evans

[Olympic Fan]

I don't have time to look them up now, but this is not the first time that a batting title could be decided by a few thousandths of a point.

However, the closest statistical race ever was an ERA title that was decided by an odd quirk in the rules. Pitcher A had thrown something like 200 1/3 innings and finished with an ERA that was fractionally better than Pitcher B, who had thrown like 200 2/3 innings (the actually innings count is fictional -- the fractions are important.

Officially, when baseball figures ERA, fractional innings are rounded off (a throwback to the pre-computer days). In this case, rounding pitcher A's innings down to 200 and rounding pitcher B's innings up to 201 reversed the statistical difference between the two -- it was that close.

As a result, pitcher B was officially awarded the ERA title, even though pitcher A actually had a lower ERA.

[EarlJam]

Wow, it just cannot get any closer than it is right now. This is so exciting. The history books will be rewritten for this one.

I mean, Chipper versus Holliday for the batting crown. I am breathless watching it. Right now the Jones boy is at 338.613 while Matt is at 337.641. They are literally separated by 1 hit. If Holliday gets a hit in his next at bat, his average will jump to 338.709, putting him in the lead. This is so close that if Chipper goes 1-for-5 and Holliday goes 1-for-3, Holliday will be back in the lead.

Whew-- this is gonna be a nail-biter.

--Jason "ya'll didn't think I was talking about the Mets & Phils or the NL Wild Card or the Pads, Rockies, and DBacks did ya?" Evans


I can't help but wonder how the Bravos would have fared if Chipper hadn't had that odd injury that caused him to miss a few weeks early in the season. With the "amazin' train wreck Mets, just a slight improvement in performance and the Braves would have won the divison.

Woulda, coulda, shoulda.

Great season from Chipper.

I still stand by my prediction made two months ago: Indians/Cubs World Series. Cubs to win it all.

-Earljam

[throatybeard]

The Braves have really shown me something. If you told me a while back that they wouldn't be eliminated until TH of the last week, I'd have scoffed.

I'm kinda pulling for the Phillies here now, just to see how the Mets fans melt down in a scenario in which Philadelphia, Chicago, Arizona and San Diego make the playoffs and the Mets pull an epic swan dive.

[Channing]

Major League Baseball has to be praying as hard as they can for the cubs to make the playoffs. Without them, and if the Mets falter, Philly is the biggest market from the NL, with serious falloffs and very little national appeal after that

[YmoBeThere]

Not sure if Philly has much national appeal...nor the Mets or Atlanta, but maybe I am just overreacting to East Coast bias.

[Lavabe]

Wow, it just cannot get any closer than it is right now. This is so exciting. The history books will be rewritten for this one.

I mean, Chipper versus Holliday for the batting crown. I am breathless watching it. Right now the Jones boy is at 338.613 while Matt is at 337.641. They are literally separated by 1 hit. If Holliday gets a hit in his next at bat, his average will jump to 338.709, putting him in the lead. This is so close that if Chipper goes 1-for-5 and Holliday goes 1-for-3, Holliday will be back in the lead.

--Jason "ya'll didn't think I was talking about the Mets & Phils or the NL Wild Card or the Pads, Rockies, and DBacks did ya?" Evans

After Friday night's results:
Chipper Jones: 1 H in 2AB >> 172H in 507AB >> 339.250493
Matt Holliday: 2 H in 4AB >> 211H in 623AB >> 338.683788

Still a one-hit difference.

In the other race, the Phillies' magic number is one, as both the Phillies win and the Mets lose. Sort of reminds me of the '69 Cubs. Last night involved one inning when the Met pitcher, Perez, hit 3 batters... two of which were for runs.

Where were THESE Mets when they last played in Atlanta?
Cheers,
Lavabe

[throatybeard]

Major League Baseball has to be praying as hard as they can for the cubs to make the playoffs. Without them, and if the Mets falter, Philly is the biggest market from the NL, with serious falloffs and very little national appeal after that

The Cubs are in.

Philadelphia is a huge TV market.

[YmoBeThere]

There was another interesting race that was probably decided last night if you are a fan of pitching. Dan Haren gave up 1 ER over 6 and John Lackey 0 ER over 7 innings in late evening action. Lackey moved ahead of Fausto Carmona to likely win the AL ERA title at 3.01 versus 3.06 and 3.07 for Carmona and Haren respectively.

[Lavabe]

It's now Holliday over Jones:
After Saturday's results:
Chipper Jones: 1 H in 3AB >> 173H in 510AB >> 339.215686
Matt Holliday: 2 H in 4AB >> 213H in 627AB >> 339.712918
Still a one-hit difference.

As for the other race, it's a one-game season. The Phillies lost, and the Mets won. Identical records.

Today's games:
Mets (Glavine) vs. Marlins (Willis) @ Mets
Nats (Bermann) vs. Phillies (Moyer) @ Phillies
Let's have one more game tomorrow to decide it all!

Sure beats watching the NFL Falcons.;)
Cheers,
Lavabe

[Lavabe]

As I look back at my post from yesterday and results from yesterday, today can be a very confusing day.

The Phillies still need one win or one Mets loss to be assured of at least playing an extra game. A Mets win assures the Mets of playing another day.

The Mets need a win and a Phillies loss to take the East. The Phillies need a Phillies win and Mets loss to take the East.

If the Phillies win and the Mets win, we have an extra game for the East... in Philly. If the Phillies and Mets both lose, we have an extra game in Philly.

Now to make things VERY complicated... THE WILD CARD race::confused:
If the Padres win today, they are the wild card. No questions.

BUT what if they lose? All you know what breaks loose!:eek:

If the Mets & Phillies lose, but the Rockies win, then it's a Padres vs. Rockies one-game playoff in Colorado.

Let's say the Mets, Phillies, and Rockies all win. The loser of the Mets vs. Phillies plays in a 3-team tournament with the Padres and Rockies. According to MLB.com:

• The loser would then enter a three-game mini-tournament for which the Rockies, based on head-to-head records during the regular season, would have the option of trying to win at home and then on the road or just once on the road to advance.

• If the Rockies choose to stay home, their opponent would be determined by the wishes of the team with the second-best combined head-to-head record; it'd be the Phillies if they're involved, but the Padres if the Mets drop into the three-way. That team could choose to play at the Rockies on Tuesday, but it's more likely that it would opt for a single game and travel to play the winner of Tuesday's game on Wednesday.

• If the Rockies opt for the one road game, Tuesday's game would feature New York at San Diego, or San Diego at Philly, with the winner hosting Colorado on Wednesday.

The rules change somewhat if only the Mets, Phillies, and Padres tie:

• The Mets and Phillies would play in Philly on Monday to crown the East champ.

• Monday's losing team would play Tuesday to decide the Wild Card. The Padres would either host the Phils, or travel to New York.

There also remains the possibility that there will be a pair of two-way ties needing to be broken, and they will be created only if the Rockies win Sunday and the Padres lose, while the Mets and Phillies both lose to end their Wild Card bids.

And you thought the BCS college football system was complicated!
Cheers,
Lavabe

[Olympic Fan]

I'm disappointed that ESPN is not doing a game -- how great would it be if they switched back and fourth between the Mets, Phillies and Padres -- with a look-in on the Braves when Chipper came to bat? Unfortunately, they are doing a day-long series of re-uns of the Contender (with the NASCAR race on the other channel).

The Braves will be on TBS, so I'll watch there to see Chipper's end of the race (especially since my only NFL option is the Browns-Ravens, ugh!)

It will be interesting to see who faces the toughest pitching -- neither the Astros, not the D-Backs have anything to play for today and could use a number of young pitchers.

One question: I know in the past, stats from special playoff games count toward regular season totals (let me clarfify -- I mean playoff games such as the Giants-Dodgers in '51; Yankees-Red Sox in '78 -- NOT the regularly scheduled division and championship series games). Have they changed that rule? If not, then Halliday could continue the batting race into a playoff game Monday or Wednesday.

As for the NL playoff race -- first key game is simply the Padres-Brewers. The Padres win, they are the wild card, period. But they knocked the Bewers out of the NL Central race Thursday and Friday, so the Brewers will be going all out to return the favor.

BTW -- How amazing was it Saturday when the Padres were one out away from clinching with future HOF reliever Trevor Hoffman on the mound and he gives up the game-tying RBI to Tony Gwynn Jr., the son of the greatest player in San Diego franchise history???

My other question -- which would now be the biggest choke job, the Mets or the Phillies? The Mets blow a 7-game lead in 15 games, falling one behind with two to play. The Phillies, after one of the great stretch runs in baseball history, take the lead with two to play ... if they blow it now, wouldn't that be almost as bad as '64???

The Mets recovery -- as temporary as it may be -- reminds me that in '51, when the Dodgers blew the huge lead to the Giants, and in 1978, when the Red Sox blew the huge lead to the Yankees, in both cases, the choking team stopped its slide at the last moment and played some heroic baseball in the final days (before, in both cases, blowing leads in the decisive playoff game).

So if history repeats, the Mets and Phillies will meet Monday toe decide the title ... the Mets will build a lead, then blow it in the ninth.

More data ... according to Peter Gammons, if there is a four-way tie for the last two playoff spots, the Rockies have the choice of having to win two games at home (Tuesday against the Mets/Phillies loser and Wednesday against the Padres) or one game on the road Wednesday (against the Mets/Phillies/Padres survivor). According to Gammons, the Rockies have already taken the one-game option.

That means that if the Padres don't clinch today, they're faced with a road game Tuesday against the Mets/Phillies loser -- they won't know which until after Monday's playoff game ... can you imagine them waiting at the Milwaukee Airport (where they are now) for the outcome of that game? And if they win Tuesday, they get on a plane and fly 3,000 miles back to San Diego for Wednesday's game!!!

Interesting decision by the Padres to go with Tomko on the mound today, instead of Peevy. The thinking is, if Tomko wins, then Peevy is ready for the first (and a potential fifth) game of the first round. If Tomko loses, then you use Peevy in Monday (if the Mets-Phillies split or both lose today and only the Rockies tie for the wildcard) or for Tuesday's playoff game.

I think the decisive factor is that if Peevy went today, it would be on short rest and that's tough to do going into the playoffs. And it doesn't matter whether he goes today, Monday or Tuesday -- in any case, he'd still only be able to go once in the division playoffs.

But what happens if there is a four-way tie? Sure, the Padres can use Peevy Tuesday against the Mets-Phillies loser, but then they have to come back with Young or Maddox Wednesday against the red-hot Rockies.

The possibilities are endless. Okay, here are a few scenario's:

-- 4-way tie: Mets at Phillies Monday, winner wins the East, loser joins in the wild-card playoff. Padres play at the Mets-Phillies loser Tuesday; the winner of that game at Colorado on Wednesday.
-- Mets-Phillies both lose Sunday, while the Padres lose and the Rockies win. That sets up TWO playoff games Monday -- Mets at Phillies for the East (with the loser OUT); Padres at Rockies for the wild card.
-- Mets-Phillies both win Sunday, while the Padres and Rockies lose: That sets up Mets at Phillies Monday with the loser playing the Padres at home Tuesday.
-- Mets-Phillies split (one wins, one loses) and the Padres wins -- no extra playoff games, period.
-- The Padres win and the Mets-Phillies either both win or both lose -- just the Mets at Phillies Monday for the East. Padres clinch the wild card.

One final note: The Red Sox did the Yankees a big favor when they clinched the best record in the AL and the choice of the playoff formats. They picked the one with the off-day in the middle. That means that the Yankees-Indians will play five straight days, meaning that it's very unlikely that the Yankees will face the Indians two stud pitches twice.

As a Yankee fan, let me say thanks Red Sox.

[mapei]

I have a feeling I am throwing myself to the wolves here, but is anyone besides me bothered by the amount of whining, arguing, fighting, and DELIBERATELY TRYING TO HIT PEOPLE WITH 90-MPH BASEBALLS in the game? For someone who isn't a regular fan, it just looks terrible. Is this stuff just accepted as "part of the game"? It sure seems like the penalties are minor and that fans either don't care or actually like it, as seems to be the case with hockey.

[YmoBeThere]

Another analogy would be saying NASCAR fans are there for the wrecks. I am not sure what games you are talking about, as I haven't noticed much more than normal throwing at people this year. Besides, if a pitcher wants to hit someone, they generally have good enough control that by taking a few MPH off the pitch they can hit them.

Perhaps by knowing which teams you are talking about it would help us identify the source of the issues. Being in New England now, I mainly get to see Red Sox games. In August, David Ortiz hit a long home run off Jared Weaver and took a little too long admiring his handiwork and getting around the base paths. Weaver stared at him the entire trip around. Will I be surprised if Weaver plunks him the next time they meet? Yes, because it will be in the playoffs this season where every baserunner matters. However, if the situation is relatively meaningless or comes next year during the regular season, I won't be surprised at all.

[throatybeard]

Glavine got roughed up and the Mets trail 8-1.

Philadelphia is up 3-1.

Last Braves telecast on TBS. It's lasted my entire life thus far.

[JasonEvans]

Chipper is 0-for-2 today with a walk. Holliday walked in his first at-bat. They are in the 6th so Chipper likely only gets one more at-bat. He MUST get a hit or it is all done for him vs. Holliday. If Holliday is leading and the Padres game goes final (Pads leading by 2 in the 6th) then I expect Colorado to take Holliday out so they make certain that he wins the batting crown.

--Jason "bummed that we are likely not gonna have a crazy 3-way tie for the wild card" Evans

[throatybeard]

Biggio was misty-eyed in his last at-bat.

When I was a kid, my parents worked Braves concessions to earn money for our school. I saw Biggio his rookie year. He, Tom Glavine, and John Smoltz have spanned my entire baseball life.

[YmoBeThere]

San Fran took Randy Winn out after he got a hit in his first AB. He will officially end the season batting 0.300

[wilson]

San Fran took Randy Winn out after he got a hit in his first AB. He will officially end the season batting 0.300

Interesting, but not as cool as the belabored opposite-field doinker that John Kruk served up in his final major league at-bat to finish at .300 for his career.

[YmoBeThere]

Interesting, I didn't know that about Kruk...

Philly in, Mets out. Everything set for the playoffs.

[mapei]

Another analogy would be saying NASCAR fans are there for the wrecks. I am not sure what games you are talking about, as I haven't noticed much more than normal throwing at people this year. Besides, if a pitcher wants to hit someone, they generally have good enough control that by taking a few MPH off the pitch they can hit them.

. . . In August, David Ortiz hit a long home run off Jared Weaver and took a little too long admiring his handiwork and getting around the base paths. Weaver stared at him the entire trip around. Will I be surprised if Weaver plunks him the next time they meet? Yes, because it will be in the playoffs this season where every baserunner matters. However, if the situation is relatively meaningless or comes next year during the regular season, I won't be surprised at all.

Thanks for acknowledging my post, and I'm actually serious about that.

I guess I just have a hard time understanding the basic concept of "normal throwing at people" and why baseball doesn't impose stiffer penalties for it and why fans seem OK with it. It seems dangerous, low-rent, and anti-competitive (in the sense of the rules of the sport) to me. And I don't understand why arguments with the umps are tolerated and expected, and why the TV highlights seem to have a fight or three to show almost every night. It doesn't seem like sport to me, and certainly not good sportsmanship, but I guess the latter is a very outdated concept in most all sports. It also slows down an already very slow-paced game.

If fighting weren't so integral to hockey, I think I might actually enjoy watching. And if all this stuff weren't so much a part of baseball, and if the game went at a bit faster pace, I think I could actually become a fan like the rest of you.

Anyway, you guys aren't bothered by it in the least and want to talk playoffs, not this stuff. So thanks to at least one of you for engaging me and do carry on. See ya when basketball starts. ;)

[throatybeard]

I think the basic rule is it's OK to come inside at the body, but not the head.

The hitters themselves test this by crowding the plate.

[jimsumner]

It's days like today when my MLB Season Ticket package pays for itself. Basically ignored the NFL to focus on NL games.

The Phillies-Nats game was blacked out in the Triangle because we're such passionate Nationals fans here and Time-Warner and MASN spent all summer throwing stink bombs at each other rather than solving the problems.

Still, the Mets collapse against Florida, Milwaukee's comeback against San Diego, and the Rockies beating Arizona gave me enough to keep up with.

Have no real affection for the Mets but feel sorry for Glavine. What kind of odds could one have gotten at the end of May that they Yankees would make the post-season and the Mets would not?

[YmoBeThere]

Thanks for acknowledging my post, and I'm actually serious about that.

I guess I just have a hard time understanding the basic concept of "normal throwing at people" and why baseball doesn't impose stiffer penalties for it and why fans seem OK with it. It seems dangerous, low-rent, and anti-competitive (in the sense of the rules of the sport) to me. And I don't understand why arguments with the umps are tolerated and expected, and why the TV highlights seem to have a fight or three to show almost every night. It doesn't seem like sport to me, and certainly not good sportsmanship, but I guess the latter is a very outdated concept in most all sports. It also slows down an already very slow-paced game.

If fighting weren't so integral to hockey, I think I might actually enjoy watching. And if all this stuff weren't so much a part of baseball, and if the game went at a bit faster pace, I think I could actually become a fan like the rest of you.

Anyway, you guys aren't bothered by it in the least and want to talk playoffs, not this stuff. So thanks to at least one of you for engaging me and do carry on. See ya when basketball starts. ;)

Perhaps why some of it might be so noticeable in baseball is that it interupts the flow of the game. Coach K has never been one to be shy on the court, but while he is umm "engaging" the referees, the game can continue. Or he will wait until the next time out. Because the flow in baseball is such, an argument/throwing event stops play. I would contend that it goes on in other sports and only seldom gets caught. In basketball, it might be an elbow to the chest or a hard foul on a breakaway. In football, it might be a cut block or a punch in the scrum/fight for a loose football. You have already mentioned hockey. In NASCAR, it is the tap at high speed sending someone into the wall. In some cases it becomes very evident, again in other sports it might go unnoticed.

I don't like the throwing at each other either, it detracts from the game. However, the "code of conduct" was developed long before I was a fan and since it is enforced by the players it is likely there to stay. Baseball has stiffened the penalties, but again it won't completely go away.

Also, since these events can be dramatic, they do get highlighted on ESPN or the local sports broadcast. I take greater pleasure in watching Maine go 7 2/3 with no hits or Clay Buchholz pitching a no hitter in his second Major League start. However, they aren't tailoring their broadcasts to me.

[throatybeard]

I feel sorry for Glavine too. He's my man.

But the Braves fan in me is still amused at the Mets' swan dive.

[mapei]

Thanks, Ymo.

[dkbaseball]

Thanks for acknowledging my post, and I'm actually serious about that.

I guess I just have a hard time understanding the basic concept of "normal throwing at people" and why baseball doesn't impose stiffer penalties for it and why fans seem OK with it. It seems dangerous, low-rent, and anti-competitive (in the sense of the rules of the sport) to me. And I don't understand why arguments with the umps are tolerated and expected, and why the TV highlights seem to have a fight or three to show almost every night. It doesn't seem like sport to me, and certainly not good sportsmanship, but I guess the latter is a very outdated concept in most all sports. It also slows down an already very slow-paced game.

If fighting weren't so integral to hockey, I think I might actually enjoy watching. And if all this stuff weren't so much a part of baseball, and if the game went at a bit faster pace, I think I could actually become a fan like the rest of you.

Anyway, you guys aren't bothered by it in the least and want to talk playoffs, not this stuff. So thanks to at least one of you for engaging me and do carry on. See ya when basketball starts. ;)

Well, aside from sending messages critiquing poor sportsmanship, throwing at hitters has usually been tactical. The pitcher wants to control the outside part of the plate and doesn't want the hitter striding into it, so he moves him back off the plate with inside pitches. This usually doesn't involve head hunting. However, if it's a squeeze play, Tom Butters taught us to throw behind the hitters' head. The hitter has only one move -- to drop -- and the catcher is on the inside part of the plate (to a right-handed hitter) where he has a better chance to tag the runner.

It does seem a bit barbaric, particularly as one ages and contemplates getting out of the way of a 98 mph fastball with middle age reflexes. But when you're young, you feel like you can get out of the way of everything. It's part of the macho culture of the game. They are cracking down more on it, and while I'm prepared to believe most anything about sports fans, I haven't particularly noticed that they relish the blood sport aspect of throwing at hitters. Aside from the drunks in the bleachers, baseball fans tend to be a little different breed from lots of NFL and NASCAR fans, who definitely want to see people harmed.

[micah75]

Last Braves telecast on TBS. It's lasted my entire life thus far.

I didn't realize this until I tuned in around the 8th inning when Biggio was taking his final bows. He looks pretty young for someone who just played 20 years of MLB, btw. For those of us who have watched the Braves on TBS for a while, this is significant. I started watching back in '81 with Dale Murphy in his prime, and Ted Turner's cable stations still a somewhat iffy venture, especially his news channel. How things have changed. At any rate, Skip Carey said there will be broadcasts on a "Peachtree" channel, although I'm not familiar with that.

Hadn't watched many Braves games the past few years and couldn't believe how old Pete Van Wieren looked. It was fun to watch father and son do the play-by-play, but I felt that Don Sutton should have stayed on last year, being a HOFer and a loyal member of the crew for something like 17 years. The end of an era, I guess.

[Channing]

Aside from the drunks in the bleachers, baseball fans tend to be a little different breed from lots of NFL and NASCAR fans, who definitely want to see people harmed.

I assure you there are NASCAR fans who actually enjoy, you know, racing. From my experiences, it is the non-NASCAR fans who happen to be watching that are looking for wrecks rather than those that actually watch and understand the sport.

[TillyGalore]

I assure you there are NASCAR fans who actually enjoy, you know, racing. From my experiences, it is the non-NASCAR fans who happen to be watching that are looking for wrecks rather than those that actually watch and understand the sport.

I have to agree with steven52682. I don't enjoy the wrecks as they do seriously interrupt the flow of the race.

The thing I enjoy most about NASCAR is the speed. Like Ricky Bobby, "I wanna go fast" so I live vicariously through the drivers. Wrecks are an unfortunate part of the sport, but not something I relish. Unless someone plays ketchup. Sorry, couldn't help myself.

[YmoBeThere]

I assure you there are NASCAR fans who actually enjoy, you know, racing. From my experiences, it is the non-NASCAR fans who happen to be watching that are looking for wrecks rather than those that actually watch and understand the sport.


I've sat in the bleachers enough to know that there are a lot of NASCAR "spectators" that are there for the crashes. What constitutes a fan is a different discussion I think.

With that said, I too enjoy the finer points of racing and prefer yellow flag free racing.

[dkbaseball]

Well, aside from sending messages critiquing poor sportsmanship

Just want to make clear to Mapei what I'm saying here. Sometimes pitchers will throw at hitters for what the pitcher regards as unsportsmanlike conduct. For example, the hitter lingering to admire his own work a bit too long after hitting a home run (Brewer Ryan Braun's manager made him apologize to the catcher for doing that), or stealing a base with a ten run lead. Used in that way, the practice is a way of policing the game's sportsmanship.

[YmoBeThere]

Interesting, but not as cool as the belabored opposite-field doinker that John Kruk served up in his final major league at-bat to finish at .300 for his career.


Trembley rested Nick Markakis, assuring the RF a .300 batting average in his second major league season. It was the only game this season that Markakis sat out.

[pfrduke]

Trembley rested Nick Markakis, assuring the RF a .300 batting average in his second major league season. It was the only game this season that Markakis sat out.

Reminds me of Ted Williams in 1941 - entering the final day of the season (a double-header with the Philadelphia A's), he was hitting .3998, which would have been rounded off to .400. The games were meaningless, and the manager offered Williams the chance to sit and keep his .400 season. Williams responded angrily (likely with heavy profanity, knowing Ted), and proceeded to go 6 for 8 in the double-header to finish the year at .406.

[Olympic Fan]

Reminds me of Ted Williams in 1941 - entering the final day of the season (a double-header with the Philadelphia A's), he was hitting .3998, which would have been rounded off to .400. The games were meaningless, and the manager offered Williams the chance to sit and keep his .400 season. Williams responded angrily (likely with heavy profanity, knowing Ted), and proceeded to go 6 for 8 in the double-header to finish the year at .406.

While everything written above is technically correct (except for the profanity laced tirade ... in fact, the accounts I've read suggest Williams thanked his manager for the offer with no anger at all), it actually gives a misleading picture of what happened.

Williams had been above .400 the entire season, but when he went hitless on the next-to-last day, he dropped to .3998. Newspaper headlines at the time screamed "Williams drops below .400!"

Yes, had he sat out that final doubleheader, Williams' batting average would have been rounded up to .400 -- but it would have been almost universally perceived and reported that he had FAILED to hit .400.

When he got a hit in his first at-bat on the final day to lift himself back over .400, he also put himself in a position where that if he had failed to get a hit in his second at-bat, he still would have finished over .400. When he hit in his second at-bat, that meant that he could fail in his next two at-bats and still finish over .400. The point is that after his first hit, he never came to the plate again with the chance to finish below .400.

My main point is that Williams' decision to play on the final day is not quite the heroic decision that misty-eyed fans have tried to turn it into. Yes, he could have say out the last day and been officially listed at .400 -- but that number would have had as big an asterisk on it as Bonds' record home run ball.

PS: To get back to the original point of this threat, Chipper went 0-for-3 Sunday to finish at .337. Halliday went 1-for-3 to finish at .339. But I see that I was right before -- stats from today's playoff game with the Padres will count in the regular season (whereas stats from the Division and League championship series don't).

So the race is not officially over ... but it's close. Halliday would have to go 0-for-5 or worse tonight to lose the title. One hit and he's in. Probably one walk and he's in (since that will make it hard to get five at-bats).

Maybe if he goes 0-for-4 he can sit and protect his title? If he comes to the plate for a fifth time after four outs would future generations of fans praise his heroic decision or understand that it was a pretty typical baseball decision.

[wilson]

At any rate, Skip Carey said there will be broadcasts on a "Peachtree" channel, although I'm not familiar with that...I felt that Don Sutton should have stayed on last year, being a HOFer and a loyal member of the crew for something like 17 years. The end of an era, I guess.

Peachtree TV is sliding into the slot of WTBS, TBS' original broadcast home. It will also have a cable feed, but only in the Atlanta region (if I understand correctly). The current TBS now becomes a cable-only channel, and will continue to look much like it has in recent years (read: increasingly crappy). Peachtree TV will show something like 45 Braves games a year, which was about the level to which TBS had dwindled before they made the decision to go national with their baseball broadcasts. Peachtree will also show movies and a lot of stuff like Diff'rent Strokes, Sanford & Son, The Cosby Show, etc. (think late '90s/early '00s TBS).
Skip Caray will broadcast games on Peachtree and keep his existing radio gig.
As for Don Sutton, don't cry for him too much. After his split with the Braves, he landed on his feet in D.C. and is now a prime part of the Nationals' broadcast team.
Sadly, Braves fans will still be subject to the awful announcers on Fox Sports Net (not to mention...gasp...pepsi commercials during every friggin' break), as well as the thorough mediocrity of SportSouth (nee Turner South).
All in all though, being able to count on all of your team's games being broadcast is a nice thing (much like being a Duke fan). To be fair, however, with the advent of today's media saturation, I suppose that's not such a special thing anymore.

[allenmurray]

While everything written above is technically correct (except for the profanity laced tirade ... in fact, the accounts I've read suggest Williams thanked his manager for the offer with no anger at all), it actually gives a misleading picture of what happened.

Williams had been above .400 the entire season, but when he went hitless on the next-to-last day, he dropped to .3998. Newspaper headlines at the time screamed "Williams drops below .400!"

Yes, had he sat out that final doubleheader, Williams' batting average would have been rounded up to .400 -- but it would have been almost universally perceived and reported that he had FAILED to hit .400.

When he got a hit in his first at-bat on the final day to lift himself back over .400, he also put himself in a position where that if he had failed to get a hit in his second at-bat, he still would have finished over .400. When he hit in his second at-bat, that meant that he could fail in his next two at-bats and still finish over .400. The point is that after his first hit, he never came to the plate again with the chance to finish below .400.

My main point is that Williams' decision to play on the final day is not quite the heroic decision that misty-eyed fans have tried to turn it into. Yes, he could have say out the last day and been officially listed at .400 -- but that number would have had as big an asterisk on it as Bonds' record home run ball.

PS: To get back to the original point of this threat, Chipper went 0-for-3 Sunday to finish at .337. Halliday went 1-for-3 to finish at .339. But I see that I was right before -- stats from today's playoff game with the Padres will count in the regular season (whereas stats from the Division and League championship series don't).

So the race is not officially over ... but it's close. Halliday would have to go 0-for-5 or worse tonight to lose the title. One hit and he's in. Probably one walk and he's in (since that will make it hard to get five at-bats).

Maybe if he goes 0-for-4 he can sit and protect his title? If he comes to the plate for a fifth time after four outs would future generations of fans praise his heroic decision or understand that it was a pretty typical baseball decision.

I am sure your version is correct. But it lacks the poetry that is baseball. I prefer the other version, and will chose to suspend all rules of logic and statistics to beleive it instead.

[EarlJam]

I am sure your version is correct. But it lacks the poetry that is baseball. I prefer the other version, and will chose to suspend all rules of logic and statistics to beleive it instead.

Well said and "word up."

-EarlJam - "Word up" is SO 1986!

[Olympic Fan]

I think baseball is strong enough to stand on the truth and not require fairy tales to bolster its history.

Ted Williams has always interested me because nobody in baseball history has seen his reputation and his popularity increase so much with time.

It's a fact that through much of his career -- at least the first two-thirds -- Williams was the most despised superstar in history -- routinely booed by his home fans. He was treated in Boston the way Barry Bonds is treated everywhere other than San Francisco.

We remember Williams as a war hero who served honorably in both WWII and the Korean conflict. That was all in th future in 1942, when he was routinely heckled as a draft dodger (he had a deferment because he was the sole support of his aging mother). It's intrigued me because very few baseball stars rushed to join up -- Bob Feller, who enlisted the day after Pearl Harbor (saying, "America needs heroes now) was the big exception. Hank Greenberg, who was drafted before the 1941 season, is another early entry.

But DiMaggio, Mize, Heinrich, Slaughter, Musial ... all those guys played in '42 and none of them took the abuse Williams did.

A large part of the problem was the personality clash between Williams and a number of the top sports writers in Boston. He snubbed them and they got even by ripping him on every possible occasion.

Last fall, when A-Rod was ripped for his postseason failures, it reminded me of the criticism of Ted Williams, who was pretty unsuccessful in Boston's biggest games -- the 46 World Series, the 48 playoff game with Cleveland; the 49 finale with the Yankees; the 50 finale with the Yankees.

Now, that's a small sample and -- like A-Rod -- pitchers almost certainly did their best to pitch around him, but with his rival DiMaggio consistently delivering in the clutch (amazing to go back and see how often he delivered in big games), it was a constant sore point and a reason Boston fans ripped their greatest player.

I'm just saying that for such a great player, Williams was amazingly unappreciated for most of his career. Only at the very, very end -- when he continued to hit well into his final seasons for bad teams -- did the tide turn and he came to be appreciated by his own fans.

Now, of course, he's an icon. The sabremeticians revere him because of his OBP and his John Wayne-like image in his final years. Boston fans forget that they treated him like $^%#. But his career is instructive about how we treat our heroes. In Bonds' case, there may be valid reasons to question or reject his greatness. In A-Rod's case -- all else aside, he's the greatest player post-Bonds -- it's less understandable.

Maybe that's because too many fans are looking for fairy tales and not flesh-and-blood heroes.

[jimsumner]

One of the reasons that Williams was booed by the home folks is his relationship with the media. Williams wasn't especially forthcoming with the writers and Boston was a fiercely competitive market, with more newspapers than it needed. So a good many of the Boston sportswriters thought their ticket to the top was to excoriate Williams at every opportunity. And the fiercely private Williams gave them lots of opportunities.

So Williams was routinely portrayed as a self-absorbed, surly malcontent by the hometown press.