Our long national nightmare is over (again)

Justin, you old lifesaver. The same day that the new hard drive was installed, I downloaded a copy of the R-Undelete program that Justin had recommended in a previous comment - let me tell you, it cuts through those write-protection errors like a hot knife through butter. I wasn't able to get every last file - some of my MP3s didn't make the jump, and other files seemed not to have been found here and there - but the bulk of them survived, and as I already said, I got the most important ones. It's almost as if the computer had never gone down at all. I had to pay 55 bucks for the non-trial copy of the program (the trial copy can only download files up to 64kb, which isn't much use except to see if it will work for you), but if you consider that I almost certainly would have had to pay any recovery service that much or more, it seems worth it to me. Now to get that iPod up and running...

I may have neglected to mention in the last post that Northwestern's loss was due in large part to having not one but two onside kicks not just recovered by UCLA but returned for touchdowns, and, even more horrifyingly, by the same guy both times. What a special teams debacle. Of course, giving up 286 yards combined to two running backs who are not Maurice Drew, as well as utterly failing to build on the momentum of going up 22-0 on two interception returns for touchdowns in the first quarter, doesn't help a team win either. There's clearly a reason this team still hasn't won a bowl game since the Truman administration. Now let us never speak of this again.

Computer update

New weirdness on the computer front. So the new hard drive came, and I installed it and Windows and all that. I'm typing this from my own computer, which is nice. Then I hooked up the old drive (Dell let me hang on to it, though they want it back after ten days) and tried to get my files off of it.

I can see all the folders and loose files in My Documents. But, for reasons that absolutely surpass my understanding, I can't copy anything that was created before June 9, 2004, nor can I open any folders that were created before that date (even if there are files inside them more recent than that). (At least that's the date I came up with based on copying over loose files by date modified and seeing when the last time was it would let me do it.)

Good news: this means that the two most important files from that computer - my movie rating database and my spreadsheet of finances - are intact and are now on the new C: drive.

Bad news: so what, I can't save anything else?

I assume this has something to do with the security settings I had on Windows on the old drive. The question is: does anyone computer-savvy (Justin, I'm looking at you) know if there's a way around this? Would even a data recovery firm be able to beat this problem, or are those ingrained settings going to kill me? I have to figure that enough people use passwords these days that there has to be a way around this, but if it only involves lasers, there's nothing more I can do here. Thank God I got the movie database file, though.

In other news - Jesus, does Northwestern ever suck. A 22-0 lead and you end up losing by double-digits (after allowing 36 unanswered points)? Fuck me.

Easy bowl access

It's a huge pain in the ass to update the bulk of this site (i.e., anything that isn't the blog) from a web browser, but it's okay with the bowl page because the HTML is pretty simple. It's slightly more complex on the main page, so I replaced the link to the soccer blog with the button for the Bowl Challenge. So you don't have to bookmark the page or go back several posts in the blog to find it now. (Yes, the soccer blog link will be back after the Challenge ends, as though anyone was reading it anyway, to say nothing of my general lack of recent updates.)

Warning: Condiment-related humdrum.

Yesterday Alma and I went to Old Orchard so that she could return the iPod to the Apple Store, and I noticed an interesting store while I was there. It's called Oil and Vinegar, and it's apparently a worldwide enterprise, with stores in twelve different countries (with six, the United States is just fifth in store count, behind Holland, the United Kingdom, Belgium, and Germany). It also sells a few different things, but the bulk of the choice falls under the heading of condiments.

For those who don't know, I'm pretty much Mr. Vinegar, so seeing a store called "Oil and Vinegar" piqued my interest quite strongly. In fact, it's exactly as amusingly haute as you would expect a store that sells mostly the items in its name and has the bulk of its stores in Europe to be. The back wall features jugs of oil and vinegar that can be dispensed by staff members into bottles; the products are sold by the deciliter, which strikes me as hilariously effete.

There are also samples out everywhere, so you can try pretty much anything on a bread cube. I don't know why I feel guilty for trying free samples - that's what they're there for - but I tried not to make it look like I was trying everything, even though I ended up sampling just about every vinegar on offer. (The one I was disappointed to have missed out on, because there was no sample dish, was this cider vinegar, since that's my favorite normal variety. Next time I'll probably just pick up a bottle.)

I ended up walking out with two deciliters (see?) of Orange-Lemon-Basil vinegar, which is seriously just about the greatest stuff ever. It's a bit too strong to drink right from the bottle as I would with regular store-bought cider vinegar (no, really) - I wouldn't be surprised to find it had an acidity level slightly higher than the usual 5% - but it's so unbelievably flavorful. I'm about to go to Jewel and pick up some French bread just so I can while away the evening (since I sure won't be on the computer) with some bread dipped in vinegar. No, I'm not kidding.

They also had a garlic mustard, which has a good bite and is generally pretty awesome. This is not a sandwich mustard, it's a dipping mustard, and I'm going to pick up some unsalted pretzel sticks in that same Jewel run.

The whole thing - two deciliters of the vinegar (plus the cost of the two bottles, but you can bring them back to be refilled and so you only have to buy them once) plus the mustard - ran me up to $13-something, so I felt like a little bit of a doofus. But as Alma and Drew both noted to me, can you really put a price on something you like that much? (Answer: "Yes, but it's higher than $13.") I have sometimes had people question how I can enjoy my food when I eat as quickly as I tend to, and I guess the answer is that just because I'm eating fast doesn't mean I'm not tasting it. Or maybe the answer is just that I don't care enough about how most of my food tastes. This vinegar and mustard is not going to be consumed in any kind of a rush - it's savoring time.

Merry fucking Christmas.

I spent two hours on the phone with Dell today only to find out that, apparently, my hard drive is corrupted beyond repair. Fan-fucking-tastic. They're sending a new hard drive, but of course good luck saving any of my files. I don't care about most of them that much, but my database of movies I've seen and their ratings is a tough loss, along with a few other things. I'm going to look into a data recovery service, but right now it's "prepare for the worst and hope for the best," as they say.

Of course I got some nice stuff for Christmas. The centerpiece of the present package, so to speak, from my parents was a 60 gig video iPod, which is pretty awesome - but of course I can't even put anything on it right now with the computer issue. Outstanding. I also got some clothes, including an amusing Toothpaste for Dinner shirt from my sister and a sweatshirt from Alma's parents, a few CDs from my dad, a Target gift card from my aunt and uncle (who I visited on Christmas Eve and stayed over to Christmas morning), and a handheld electronic Sudoku player from Alma.

As they say, though, it's the thought that counts, and even though Alma's last-minute replacement gift was a good one, it's worth noting that she had bought me an iPod Nano. I opened my parents' gifts at my aunt's house on Christmas Eve night, finding their iPod - then when Alma called me, I couldn't wait to tell her about it... and was met with an "Um..." on the other end of the phone. As my aunt noted, plenty of people wanted an iPod for Christmas and didn't get one... and I got two. Of course, I don't get to keep both of them, but again - it's the thought that counts, and Alma's thought was fantastic. I guess my desire for an iPod was just a little too loudly and consistently stated.

Back to whining. (a) Has anyone ever had files recovered from a hard disk that went down? (b) If you're from this area and you have, can you recommend anyone?

Well, this sucks.

So I come home today and my computer was off, which is odd. Sometimes I'll come back and it's on the sign-on screen because Windows installed some crap and had to reboot, but off? That's a new one. I turn it on and Windows won't even boot... I get some error message saying that a system file is missing or corrupt, and that I need to get the Windows setup CD and try and repair the file from there.

But of course, guess what? I can't find the CD. In fact, I'm not entirely convinced there ever was a CD... pretty much any OS comes pre-installed these days, and the CDs are only ever backup. I have the CD for the Windows ME from my old computer, but a fat lot of good that does me. It's possible that there is a CD and it's floating around in my morass of a room - I found the CD for my printer, and for Microsoft Front Page, and these are both things I would have to have used on my current computer... so if there is a CD, you'd think it would make sense for it to be there... unless of course it's still in the computer box, which is I'm not even sure where. (Home? I feel like I've had this computer since senior year, because I remember picking up the box at Plex. So I've been home - I'm referring here to DC - at least a couple times since then. Did I take the box back with me? I probably didn't throw it out - especially if it contained CDs - so that's as reasonable an explanation as any.)

But still, this sucks ass. What if I can't find the CD? Am I going to have to buy a new copy of Windows XP just to repair this thing? And God forbid I have to format my hard drive - I have everything on there and no backup. (Yeah, yeah... clearly I should ask for an external hard drive for my next birthday or something.) Anyone ever had an experience like this before?

(By the way, I'm posting from Alma's now, obviously. Depending on how this plays out, the bowl picks will probably not see much updating for a few days or longer. Grr.)

Let the games begin

The Bowl Challenge picks are here.

Game One has started, and it's scoreless in the first. Thrills!

Going bowling

The 2005-06 bowl season will be shortly upon us. Here now, my picks.

Tuesday, December 20

New Orleans Bowl
Southern Mississippi vs. Arkansas State

A bit of a misnomer this year since the game is being held in Lafayette, but would the crowd be much smaller? It's a bit of a wash on "local advantage," but Southern Miss plays in a real conference. The Sun Belt? Come on.
Pick: Southern Miss.

Wednesday, December 21

GMAC Bowl
UTEP vs. Toledo

The Rockets didn't play Marshall this year, depriving this matchup of a common opponent. It should be a high-scoring game - the GMAC frequently is - but Toledo is a little more seasoned. Give them the edge.
Pick: Toledo.

Thursday, December 22

Las Vegas Bowl
BYU vs. California

Cal struggled down the stretch, losing four of their last six, but three of those were to ranked teams and only a 35-10 loss to USC (of whom you may have heard) was decided by more than a score. BYU scored a lot of points (117 in two weeks against Air Force and UNLV) but also allowed quite a few, and didn't beat anyone of note.
Pick: Cal.

Poinsettia Bowl
Colorado State vs. Navy

Seriously? No, seriously? This would be the lowest-rated game if one of the teams wasn't a service academy (the lack of a Sun Belt school helps too, I guess). The Mids' schedule was scandalously weak outside of a trip to South Bend (where, of course, they lost), but the Rams weren't much more impressive. San Diego is a Navy town...
Pick: Navy.

Friday, December 23

Fort Worth Bowl
Kansas vs. Houston

This has to be the least-attractive matchup of teams from major conferences. Kansas was just 3-5 in the Big 12 (and aside from a shock pasting of Nebraska, the two wins were unimpressive), meaning that they owe this bid to their pre-conference schedule - of Florida Atlantic, Appalachian State, and Louisiana Tech. Now, let's be fair - Appalachian State are national champs! Of I-AA. Says a lot about the talent gap between I-A and I-AA, don't it? It's high-flying offense (Houston) vs. the collegiate equivalent of the Bears (Kansas' schedule included a 12-3 loss to Kansas State). Unless Kansas can really shut down Kevin Kolb, they'll probably have to score at least 28 points to win, and they've done that just once since the OOC schedule ended. A 30-17 loss to Texas Tech, which plays similarly to Houston, may be a sign.
Pick: Houston.

Saturday, December 24

Hawaii Bowl
Nevada vs. Central Florida

Jeez, another winner. I'm just amazed Hawaii's not playing in this one for once. Central Florida went 0-11 in 2004, then turned it around this year... but this is still their first ever bowl, and Nevada beat a ranked team this year.
Pick: Nevada.

Monday, December 26

Motor City Bowl
Memphis vs. Akron

DeAngelo Williams is a crazy runner - 1726 yards - and Akron is not known for their D. Or getting to bowls.
Pick: Memphis.

Tuesday, December 27

Champs Sports Bowl
Clemson vs. Colorado

Now we're starting to get to the slightly more interesting matchups. Colorado is reeling and has no head coach, though, so you have to like the Tigers here.
Pick: Clemson.

Insight Bowl
Arizona State vs. Rutgers

The Scarlet Knights might have a better overall record, but I can't see them pulling this one off in AZ State's backyard.
Pick: Arizona State.

Wednesday, December 28

MPC Computers Bowl
Boise State vs. Boston College

A home game for the Broncos, but BC hasn't lost a bowl game since 1999. But Boise State puts up a ton of points. And they're playing at home.
Pick: Boise State.

Alamo Bowl
Michigan vs. Nebraska

Nebraska finished okay by stomping Colorado, but then who didn't? They have a 7-6 win over Pitt on their schedule, which I think was won on a two-run homer in the ninth. Michigan in a laugher.
Pick: Michigan.

Thursday, December 29

Emerald Bowl
Georgia Tech vs. Utah

Utah's closer to home, but GT beat North Carolina this year and Utah didn't. That'll do.
Pick: Georgia Tech.

Holiday Bowl
Oregon vs. Oklahoma

A surprisingly interesting offering. Do the 10-1 Ducks fall apart out of disappointment? OU quietly finished 7-4 (and probably should have been 8-3), with their only losses to ranked teams with the exception of the opening loss to TCU. Still, Oregon should be better.
Pick: Oregon.

Music City Bowl
Minnesota vs. Virginia

Virginia is not a good team. Minnesota's not great, but they're good enough to win this - they like going to Nashville, it seems (third time in four years) and they also like winning there.
Pick: Minnesota.

Friday, December 30

Sun Bowl
Northwestern vs. UCLA

7-4 vs. 9-2... well, you tell me. NU's defense was last - LAST - in the country this year. Still, there's no money riding on this... so fuck it, Northwestern. They've gotta win one sometime, right?
Pick: Northwestern.

Independence Bowl
South Carolina vs. Missouri

It's baffling that a 6-5 team gets to play this late. Spurrier's boys should beat the Tigers.
Pick: South Carolina.

Peach Bowl
LSU vs. Miami

Nice matchup. This year's LSU team should be better than this year's Miami team, though.
Pick: LSU.

Saturday, December 31

Meineke Car Care Bowl
South Florida vs. NC State

I take it all back. December 31 and this is the best we can do? Ugly. NC State because they're closer to home and more experienced.
Pick: NC State.

Liberty Bowl
Tulsa vs. Fresno State

This is also the least appetizing Liberty matchup in years. I'll take the team that gave USC a game.
Pick: Fresno State.

Houston Bowl
TCU vs. Iowa State

ISU choked away a chance to... well, get killed by Texas. Maybe they're not so upset. Still, TCU handled Oklahoma as you'll recall, and should have more fans at the game.
Pick: TCU.

Monday, January 2

Cotton Bowl
Texas Tech vs. Alabama

It only just occurred to me while writing this that there are no games on January 1 because it's a Sunday and college football avoids the NFL like the plague. Anyway, to say this game features contrasting styles is underselling it. Yikes. Bama ended with two tough losses; Tech squeaked past OU but at least ended with a win.
Pick: Texas Tech.

Outback Bowl
Iowa vs. Florida

Florida seemed to fly under the radar this year. I still think they're better than Iowa.
Pick: Florida.

Gator Bowl
Louisville vs. Virginia Tech

A new-Big East team vs. an ex-Big East team. Louisville is missing its QB; big edge to Tech.
Pick: Virginia Tech.

Capital One Bowl
Wisconsin vs. Auburn

Did we see much of anything out of UW this year? It's Alvarez's last game, but I just think Auburn's better.
Pick: Auburn.

Fiesta Bowl
Ohio State vs. Notre Dame

Ugh. Do I have to root for someone? Okay, OSU.
Pick: Ohio State.

Sugar Bowl
West Virginia vs. Georgia

Interesting. But with the Sugar moved to Atlanta, hyorge edge for the Dawgs.
Pick: Georgia.

Tuesday, January 3

Orange Bowl
Florida State vs. Penn State

I wonder if they can get Geritol to sponsor this one?
Pick: Penn State.

Wednesday, January 4

Rose Bowl
USC vs. Texas

I'm anticipating a good game, so let's hope UT doesn't disappoint. I still think USC is better overall and will win, but we could be looking at a really fun shootout, just like last year's Rose. It'd be nice.
Pick: USC, 31-27.

Everyone else's picks go up later today, just before the game.

The 2005-06 BigFlax.com College Bowl Challenge

The 2005-06 BigFlax.com College Bowl Challenge is officially upon us. We're just playing for pride again this year, both because it's easier and because I was a tad late on coordinating this. If you're up for it, send a list of your bowl picks to the usual e-mail at any time between now and midnight CT on December 20. Include as a tiebreaker your score for the Rose Bowl (be sure you include this - I've had to ask for it again way too many times in the past). Good luck!

You'd better not pout, I'm telling you why

Juan Pierre is coming to town.

It's like an early Christmas present from the Cubs to me. I've had Pierre on my radar since he killed us in '03 - in fact, I wrote the following in the brief period during which I maintained the Cubs blog back in July:

"Trade rumors: ESPN suggested that Hendry might be looking at Juan Pierre; Hendry denied doing any such thing, though it's hard to imagine why he wouldn't. Pierre's having a down year, but in three of the last four he's racked up at least 200 hits. Hendry should know what's up since Pierre killed the Cubs in '03, getting ten hits in 33 at-bats in the NLCS, including two triples. He's also a base-stealing threat, getting at least 45 in each of the last four years, though he does get caught quite a bit (2004: 45 SB, 24 CS), which lowers that value. Still, he plays center and is a proven leadoff commodity, and he would likely come on the cheap in a down year with the Marlins evidently looking to dump salaries."

Is three minor-league pitchers "on the cheap" for a guy who could bang out 200 hits for you for the next ten years? I say yes. Mitre started 18 games in three years for the Cubs, going 4-10 with a 6.12 ERA. Not so good. He had back-to-back nice starts in July this year, but the fact that he could throw sixteen shutout innings over two games and still finish with a 5.37 ERA when he only pitched 44.1 innings the entire rest of the year is pretty damn ugly. The only things I know about Pinto and Nolasco are their stats in that article; it's a shame to give up a lefty who goes 10-3 with a 2.71 ERA in Pinto, but that's Double-A. Who knows if these guys will ever really turn into decent pros? Meanwhile, the Cubs still have a fair number of arms in the system and they just got the hit-machine leadoff hitter they didn't have down there.

One does wonder what happens to CP now - do they try to stick him in right, or is the Corey era just over? It's kind of a shame, but let's face it - the guy simply never showed enough of the skill he was supposed to have. When you're being raved about as a five-tool guy and in your best overall season you hit .266, that's not the best sign.

The Cubs have come up on a few other radar screens - for those of you who don't shell out for ESPN.com Insider, here's some paraphrased information about other possible avenues:

Bobby Abreu: I guess they'd stick him in right (or left; Murton's not that big a lock out there yet). But the Phillies are apparently asking for Prior, so guess what's not happening.

Julio Lugo: It looks like this deal is probably going to go down with other teams and not the Cubs. A shortstop - or at least an infielder - should be the other big key on Hendry's shopping list and Lugo wouldn't have been a bad one, but I won't be that disappointed.

Aubrey Huff and Kevin Mench: Potential guys to play right, according to ESPN. With three pitchers already shipped out and Felix Pie and Rich Hill near-untouchable, though, one wonders who exactly Hendry is going to send off for either of these guys, or indeed anyone else. Hendry has also confirmed that neither Prior nor Zambrano will be traded and Wood has an NTC, so the big pitchers aren't going anywhere (mercifully).

Milton Bradley: The Cubs are allegedly at the top of the list, though I think that was written before the Pierre deal. I don't see what's so great about this deal, anyway - Bradley's stats have never been astonishing and he's a total head case.

Orlando Hudson: I'd love this one. He's a light-ish bat up the middle, but he plays Gold Glove defense and with Lee and Ramirez at the corners we don't need a 40-homer guy in the middle infield.

There are a few other names, but none that seem worth mentioning at the moment. Still, I really hope Hendry keeps going - the Pierre deal alone has me really excited, but why stop there?

Are you ready for a football post?

Except for bitching after the Michigan game, I don't think I've talked much about football this year, either college or pros. So let's do a little of that right now.

First of all, if you're interested in the College Bowl Challenge, let me know in the comments box; last year, as you may recall, I gave up on trying to collect cash - especially as entry fees had previously been a scant two dollars - but put in your two cents (ha!) on whether or not you'd rather play for money if at all possible. We could always up it to a more-worth-trying five bucks, although with the crapshoot nature of bowls I don't know if anyone would care enough. The alternative, of course, is simply to do it for pride, as last year.

So - Northwestern. In the Sun Bowl.

Pros: It's not a bowl we've seen them in before; it's not lame-ass Detroit; it's slightly more "prestigious" than the fairly new Music City Bowl; UCLA doesn't have a great defense.
Cons: UCLA does have a usually strong offense; it's lame-ass El Paso.

This is the kind of game where you could see more combined points scored than in a Northwestern basketball game. The last time Northwestern was in a bowl they came up just short; this year the defense seemed to frequently make plays when it absolutely had to (save the Penn State game), but can they hang around long enough to put themselves in that situation? The Cats never seem to have real bowl chops, so I'm not exactly optimistic, but I'll watch it as long as I can.

In other news.... da Bears.

I've avoided talking about this as long as I could because I figured it couldn't last, but the defense keeps being ridiculous and the offense combines to do just enough to win. Still, the comparisons to the '85 team are a little worrisome - that team, after all, had Walter Payton (1,551 yards that year), and while Jim McMahon may not have been Joe Montana, he wasn't quite as esteemed a graduate of the "Please God, just don't let him mess up" school (McMahon's '85 stats: 178/313, 2,392 passing yards, 15 TDs, 11 INTs; Orton's 2005 stats so far: 165/309, 1,591 passing yards, 9 TDs, 13 INTs). Sure, the defense may be a little better - though there's the argument for the rest of the league being kind of watered down, and certainly the Bears have capitalized to some degree on having a schedule that isn't exactly one of the hardest out there - but despite the old "offense wins games, defense wins championships" adage, it really does help to have some offense. While this team has shown flashes at times, it seems like in general they're content to run it constantly, not ask Orton to do much, settle for field goals, and assume the defense will get stops and turnovers. And it's worked so far, but can that really translate into a playoff run, even in a fairly weak NFC? I don't know. I like Orton (even though he went to Purdue), but can you honestly tell me you wouldn't take someone like Jeff Garcia right about now? 6-for-17 for 68 yards might be enough against the 2-win Packers, but that's not holding up in January (not that Orton doesn't usually have a better game than that, of course, but still). There's now the rumor that Grossman could be back, but do you just throw him back out there if you're Smith, saying he earned the job before going down? I don't know.

I'm also starting to get worried about the Vikings, suddenly one of the hotter teams in the NFL and just two games back with the toughest stretch of the Bears' season coming up in these final four games (at Pittsburgh, Atlanta, at Green Bay and, of course, at Minnesota to finish the year). Of those games, the Bears need only go 1-3 as long as the one is against Minnesota, but it's a little worrying. I have faith in the defense, but Pittsburgh has a pretty good defense too and it takes very little to stop this Bears offense. That's one of those games where there isn't a potential score low enough to surprise me. 6-3? 3-0? How about 4-2? Anything could happen as long as it involves no touchdowns being scored. The Atlanta game - well, you never know what you're getting from Vick. At least this one's in Chicago. I have a hard time believing that the Bears as configured should be losing to either Green Bay or Minnesota, but it's hard to believe that they're going unbeaten in the division (even if it's only 6-0 now with the gerrymandering). I figure they might trip up at Lambeau - Favre is certainly not what he was, and they finally got him at Soldier (first win over Green Bay there since 1993? Ridiculous!), but you can't write him off in a game against the Bears. The Vikings game - well, they'd better win that one, especially if they lose to the Packers.

The weird thing to think of is that if the Bears win 12 games - quite possible, though hardly certain - they might actually be the #1 seed in the NFC and potentially have just two home games - in Chicago, in January, possibly against teams not as familiar with the weather like Seattle, Carolina, or Tampa - standing between them and a trip to the Super Bowl. Bizarre thought. Of course, it didn't help in 2001, but there was something very flukey about that year. This year it seems like the defense might actually be the real deal and ready to hold up in the playoffs, though the offense's mediocrity is going to prevent any blowouts. This team isn't winning any 46-10 games.

The other odd thing is that I find myself caring more than I expected to. I'm a Bears fan, but I'm not a crazy die-hard Bears fan. Their general futility over the past decade and a half - the amount of time that I've really been into sports - has never affected me as much as the Cubs' has. The distinction here can probably be traced to the fact that the Bears have won in my lifetime, even if I have no recollection of it. But this morning I was in the car and they played the call of Vasher's INT return in the fourth. The announcer yelled "Touchdown!" as Vasher scored and immediately followed that with "Touchdown Bears!" - and as he yelled "Touchdown Bears!" I could feel something within me leap, almost palpably, as if I had some deep, buried inner Bears fan conscience that was doing cartwheels. And I was suddenly reminded of what all this means, of what a good Bears season is really supposed to be about, of what it feels like to beat a bitter rival in December (even in 2001, two of the Bears' three losses came to Green Bay), of what it feels like to hear "Touchdown Bears!" and remember, "That's my team doing that." And I suddenly remembered why I cared and how much I cared.

I have often wondered if I'm really the right "kind" of sports fan. I follow the scores and sometimes watch the games, but I am rarely to be found at the stadiums and I cannot recall ever feeling emotional over a big win or a big loss. I didn't cry when the Cubs lost in 2003; I was happy when the Bulls and Devils did all their winning but I cannot say I feel like it provided me with any superlative joy. Yet I care deeply and unreservedly about the outcomes of games. So why is that, I wondered, when what seemed like it should have been the real importance of their outcomes seemed to elude me?

What it comes down to is simply that I do care. I'm not at the games because I don't have the money. I haven't been emotional after a big win because all the big wins in the last 10 years have seemed like foregone conclusions. The Bulls and Devils? They've already won, how could they not do it again? In some respects I was the same person I hated - I could justify it because these were my teams, they had been since before they won (even if in less conscious fashion), but I was spoiled. I expected titles and anything less was simply a bitter disappointment. And that's no way to live.

So what this season's Bears provide, and what I hope at least one future Cubs team will provide for me, is hope. The hope that we will see something we have not seen in a long time and do not feel like we can say for sure if we will ever see again. The way you hear "Touchdown Bears!" and do not simply feel relieved, like "Thank God they finally took control against a 2-10 team," but feel pure joy washing over you, the sheer unadulterated pleasure of your team beating your biggest rival on your field in a critical game for your playoff chances. Feeling so connected to what's going on that referring to the team as "we" no longer sounds toolish. Finally realizing just how much you don't want this run to end.

I can't say I expect the Bears to win the Super Bowl, or even make it. But I hope they do. Of course I do every season, but usually that's over long before this point of the year. Now, it's a hope that for once can have some actual foundation. A hope that lifts my spirits every time a Bear crosses the plane into the end zone. I wasn't even prepared for how good it would make me feel - but I hope it doesn't stop anytime soon.

Commute from Hell

Let's start by describing the commute on most days.

Generally speaking, I leave the apartment around 8:25 and get to the bus stop at about 8:30. There are four lines that service the Cornelia and Lake Shore stop at this time of the morning. In order of preference:

1. 135 (Clarendon/LaSalle Express). This is the preferable one because it gets onto the Outer Drive at Belmont and doesn't get off again until Wacker. I get off at Wacker/Stetson (second stop) and just cross the street to the Illinois Center.
2. 145 (Wilson/Michigan Express). This one gets off Outer Drive at Michigan, which means at least ten minutes for the mile down Michigan between Lake Shore and South Water.
3. 146 (Inner Drive Express). Just like the 145, except it turns off Michigan at Wacker, meaning more walking than either of the other two (albeit not by a significant amount).
4. 151 (Sheridan). Ridiculously suboptimal, as it's the only one of the four that isn't an express bus. And of course a local bus takes about 45 minutes to make this trip despite the fact that it's less than five miles.

Today I was at the bus stop around 8:20. It was also fucking cold. About five degrees on the positive side of zero, in fact. The one good thing was that there was no wind, though this is less a "good thing" than simply "not a bad thing." This was probably the first truly bitter cold day of the year - it was pretty cold on Thanksgiving, but it never got below 15 or so, and anyway almost no one goes to work on Thanksgiving - so of course the CTA picked today to roll out its brand new transportation schedule, tentatively titled "No Buses Show Up, Ever."

From my vantage point at the Cornelia/Lake Shore stop I can see north on the Inner Drive about as far as Grace, which is maybe four full blocks up. Roughly speaking, here was how today went:

8:20: Arrive at bus stop.
8:25: Hey, here comes a bus! Oh... it's a 151. Never mind.
8:27: Another one! [the bus turns onto Addison] Okay, that's a 152 (the Addison bus).
8:29: Is this a bus I can get onto?
8:30: ...no. It's another damn 152.
8:32: Okay, now this bus is definitely coming to us... but people keep getting on at Addison...
8:33: ...and it speeds right past us, totally crammed.
8:35: Here comes another 151. Great.
8:37: Here come two buses now!
8:38: Okay, well, one was a 152, but the other is at Brompton [one block north]...
8:39: ...and it fills up. Well, it was only a 146 anyway, right?
8:41: Another 152 turns off at Addison.
8:44: ANOTHER fucking 152 turns off at Addison. How many goddamn people go west on Addison to get to work?
8:45: Aaaaand it's another 151. A guy at the stop actually snaps and shouts at the driver, "What's going on with the express buses? We've been here half an hour!" The driver, of course, has no idea. I finally get fed up and get on the 151.

To recap: I stood there for 25 minutes and in that time five buses went west on Addison. That's one 152 bus every five minutes. Yet in the same 25 minute period only five buses - on four total lines! - came by our stop. Two of those didn't even stop because they had filled up (gee, I wonder why) and the other three were all from the same, local, line. Also worth noting - not a single one of the five buses that actually came by was a double bus. I mean, why would you want to send a larger-capacity bus along a busy route during AM rush? I can't think of a single fucking reason.

Here's the problem with commuting. Say work starts at nine (as it standardly does). If you leave at 8:30, it might take you 30 minutes to get to work, but if the buses don't feel like showing up or if traffic is particularly bad, it might take 45 (or, in this case if you include the 45 minutes I spent on the 151, over a goddamn hour). But if you leave at 8:00 to account for these problems, it probably takes 20 minutes tops and you're there ridiculously early. (Also, then I have to get up earlier.) The train is also usually more reliable than the bus in terms of showing up, and it takes less time to get to Lake (only 15-20 minutes), but it's nearly a ten-minute walk to the train even if you're rushing, probably a five-minute wait (again, at least) unless you get lucky, and then another ten minutes from the train station to the office. That's nearly half an hour of added time and totally negates the train's advantage, plus doing all that walking when it's five degrees out is not exactly the most awesome thing in the world. Plus the train is never not crammed to bursting, whereas most buses at least have some breathing room, if not any seats.

I guess it all probably gets worse during the winter - at least, that's my impression of it so far, as post-Thanksgiving I don't think there's been a decent commuting day yet. Obviously I haven't had to do any of this prior to now, so I don't have previous years to which I can compare this. But is it too much to ask the CTA to actually send buses to meet the need? It's like they have some mathematical formula where the number of buses released is proportional to the temperature outside - as the mercury falls, the bus flow does too. I imagine that the perfect point is at -40, where Fahrenheit and Celsius are the same and the number of buses is exactly zero. Remind me just to stay home if it ever gets that cold.

For those scoring at home

The review of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire is here. The condensed thoughts: it's not as good as the book - no duh - but considering how much it had to shear off, it's not bad at all. More details on that and some more praise as well, but you'll have to read it.

Jonesing for trouble

If you were thinking of buying the Jones Holiday Soda pack because you thought it seemed amusing or something... holy shit, do not do it. Alma and I did it for you and I can report that this is not something one can enter into lightly.

The road to wherever the crap

For just the third time since leaving high school, and the first without having to resort to single-elim playoffs, the team I was on won a tournament this past weekend, and in the best possible place - a 9-1, oh-so-close to undefeated campaign at TRASH Midwest Regionals to give ourselves an automatic berth into TRASHionals, wherever it ends up being. (I'd like something fairly close, but que sera sera.)

The recap of the tournament, which is not all that funny but at least tells you what happened, is here.

One of our prizes for winning was a VHS copy of Left Behind: The Movie, which had apparently been left behind (eh? eh?) in the bargain bin at Blockbuster. Alma and I actually subjected ourselves to it; it is indeed pretty terrible. I may actually write a review, or maybe I'll just get bored. Maybe one of these days I'll put up a FOGHAT recap too, but then we didn't win that one.

Tyler gets to see if he's right

The review for Stay is here.

48-7???

I'm not even going to talk about the Northwestern game. Just ugly, and that's that.

It's been a while since I've made an update here, hasn't it? Work is going along; it's kind of the busy season what with Black Friday just two weeks off, so I've been doing more, which is always good. For those of you who don't know what I do, no, I don't really work in retail, but I work for a company that has connections to retail. It's probably best not to discuss it here, but you can always ask if you're so curious.

Someone posted a thread over at Rotten Tomatoes asking what we thought the best songs of 2005 were. I came up with this shortlist of my favorites:

Ben Folds, Landed
The New Pornographers, Use It
Fountains of Wayne, Maureen
Oasis, Lyla

I also included Green Day's Wake Me Up When September Ends because some people were throwing in songs that had been released as singles in 2005, but since the album came out last year I guess that doesn't really count; many of the bands I listen to these days don't even do a lot of single releasing in the U.S. and I rarely find that singles end up being my favorite songs on particular albums anyway, so counting that way seems kind of silly.

I decided to look at Amazon's Editorial 100 list of the albums of 2005 to see if that would jog my memory at all and found out that Idlewild have a new album out, which somehow escaped me. I'm a big fan of their last effort, The Remote Part, and I own 100 Broken Windows though I'm not sure I've actually listened to it (or if so, not more than once). I listened through Amazon's song samples and the new one, Warnings/Promises, sounds pretty... well, promising. (Pun not intended.) People have called them the "Scottish R.E.M." - if that's the case, I feel sort of like someone who caught on at Life's Rich Pageant. You know, not early enough to feel totally awesome (that would be "Radio Free Europe," I guess), but before any potential explosion (the eventual Automatic for the People breakout).

The other album I'm looking at right now is Out of Nothing by Embrace. As with Oasis' "Lyla," I found out about this one largely due to the influence of the FIFA 2006 video game, which has a playlist coming straight from the Europop scene. Needless to say, it features about three bands I'd heard of pre-game (Oasis, Doves, Bloc Party... there might be one or two others that I'm forgetting), but the finds were "Lyla" - I'd heard of Oasis, of course, but I'll be damned if I knew they had a new album out before then - and "Ashes," by Embrace. Embrace are another British band that have some connection to Coldplay - Chris Martin did some work on some of Out of Nothing's tracks - and draw comparisons to them, but there's something about their sound that strikes out on its own. Coldplay, though I like some of their stuff, tends to strike me as kind of clinical, like the sort of music that might be created by a supercomputer programmed to make Top 40 hits but unable to parse human emotion. Not that Coldplay's stuff can't be emotional ("The Scientist" works for me), but it's the sound I'm talking about... something about the way it's done. I can't really describe it. Anyway, Embrace doesn't do that - there's a recognizable vibe, in particular to "Ashes," that just sounds more to me like there's something else behind it. This probably isn't making much sense, and I'm sure Craig is polishing his gun as we speak, but oh well.

Every once in a while I seem to go through a point where music means a lot more to me. I love movies and I love going to see them, but you can't take movies with you wherever you go, and while the best of them certainly connect to the emotions, they can't really do it in that kind of easily repeatable way that a good song can. (No matter how much I love Shawshank, I'm not going to watch it six consecutive times. But when I first listened to "Landed," I played it at least that many times in a row and maybe more.) Maybe it's the early sunsets or just the cooling temperatures, but the fall always seems to be a time when I want to see more movies and listen to more music. And right now there are still only a few movies out that I'm really that interested in, and since I'm working full-time it's harder to see them... so music takes over. Though I feel in some ways like a different person when this happens, I can't say I don't enjoy it; the prospect of discovering the next great album for myself is always a tantalizing one.

If anyone has any suggestions based on what's been mentioned in this post, I'm open, though Idlewild and Embrace are probably the next two purchases, if and when I buy anything at all.

Movies!

I jumped from five to seven on "movies seen in the theater this year" in the past two days. It's always nice when stuff actually comes out that manages to pique your interest. So what did I see? Well, I saw Good Night, and Good Luck and Elizabethtown. One of them was very good. One was very bad. You can guess which is which before reading the reviews... or you can just read them. But here's a preliminary hint: as with my review of Almost Famous, someone I know will not be thrilled with my review of a Cameron Crowe film.

Deja vu all over again

Today's exciting Bears win - over the Lions on an interception return in overtime, recalling the 2001 season - got a small measure of regional revenge, but yesterday's Northwestern game was incredibly depressing. Basanez looked erratic and had his worst game of the year, Sutton did very little (besides have a fumble get returned for a touchdown in a bad 14-point-swing early in the game that basically set the tone), the Cats squandered a valiant second-half effort by their defense by doing nothing offensively, and they ended up losing 33-17.

The game reminded me a lot of the 2000 Iowa game. Why? Because under Randy Walker, this Wildcats team does not seem comfortable playing the favorite, even to a minimal degree. Consider the following situation:

November 11, 2001: A week after beating Michigan 54-51, Northwestern goes to Iowa and loses 27-17. Looking at the raw numbers doesn't tell the whole story, as Damien Anderson still ran for 132 yards, but Zak Kustok was sacked eight times and NU was down 20-3 as late as two minutes left in the third quarter before scoring a couple late and ultimately meaningless touchdowns.

So why did they perform so badly against a team that finished 3-9? Some would say simply that this was "a classic letdown game," and in fact the USA Today recap said just that. On the other hand, Northwestern had significantly more talent than Iowa and had scored at least four touchdowns in six straight games. So what was the problem? I would argue that Northwestern simply responded poorly to being the favorite, and not just the favorite, but the one with all the attention.

Generally speaking, being a fan of Northwestern is much more rewarding than being a fan of a Michigan or Ohio State. Not because NU does more winning - obviously not - but because of what individual Northwestern seasons mean. If Northwestern has a mediocre or bad season, fine - we all expected that. When they have a good season, that's great - if NU wins nine games, that's amazing, while nine wins by Ohio State is just another season they didn't win a national championship. Then you've got Michigan fans fighting internal battles with themselves when they have even an average season (and the Wolverines will certainly still make a bowl). That's why I'm glad not to be a Yankees fan, or Duke basketball fan (Tyler's recent "I hate it when we're ranked preseason #1" posts get very little sympathy from me), or whatever. It's not because success bores me per se - although that's really more or less true - but because I firmly believe (and I said as much to Craig in a conversation we had around the same time that he made that linked post) that you cannot appreciate the good without the bad. If you win the Big Ten championship six times out of ten, then a season in which you go 8-3 or 7-4 is suddenly a crippling disappointment. Of course, Northwestern will almost certainly never win a national championship, but que sera sera.

But here's the problem with all of this. Sometimes, that general sense of playing the underdog perpetually serves as a kind of inspiration for the team - witness the success of Gonzaga from double-digit seed lines in the NCAA Tournament and their subsequent early-round failings with seedings like #3 and #2. Northwestern seems to do a similar thing. In 2000 and again this year, they managed to get some attention nationally, but most of it seemed to be of this variety: "Those feisty Northwestern Wildcats! They score so many points and have no defense! That's adorable." However, after beating Michigan in 2000 - and coming back from a 28-10 deficit in the second quarter to do it - the attention was a little more like "Wow, this team could be for real!" At which point they promptly lost to a vastly inferior Iowa team.

A similar thing was true here. Northwestern was actually ranked ahead of Michigan for the first time at their meeting since 1959, and everyone made a big deal out of that. NU was playing at home, where they had won in 2000, and they were racking up tons of points and yards; meanwhile, Michigan was unimpressive and failing to live up to their preseason ranking.

So, of course, Northwestern lost and looked terrible doing it in exactly the place where everyone would have expected them to succeed - on offense. Some credit goes to Michigan's defense, but Northwestern really beat themselves with the overthrown passes, the critical fumble, the holding penalties, and the works. (Plus, Michigan had at least one blatant interference penalty not called on them, though it would likely not have made an ultimate difference.)

I realize, of course, that it's a little hypocritical to call out Michigan fans for complaining about a mediocre season and then get so huffy over Northwestern's lack of success, but of course I don't have various national championships to fall back on, and there is little expectation that Northwestern will be back next year, once Basanez leaves. So... it was disappointing. On the other hand, this team is almost certain to make a bowl (it would take an embarrassing loss to Illinois - and losses to Ohio State and Iowa - to avoid bowl eligibility), so at least there's that, even though it will probably be the Motor City again. Oh well.

That's all, folks

Well, that happened. The Sox winning is not the worst thing in the world, of course, but there are a number of problems that go along with it.

1) We have to hear about how noble and stoic the long-suffering White Sox fans were, compared to the "whiny" fans of the Red Sox and Cubs. No one points out that the difference is that the Red Sox and Cubs have much larger fanbases; is it really any wonder that no one noticed 88 years of griping by the forty thousand legitimate Sox fans in the city?

2) We have to deal with the bandwagon of casual fans who don't bother to pick a side and simply claim whoever's winning as their own. I was IMed last night by one guy who had recently posted on a message board that he was a fan of both teams (to which I replied, simply, "Dude."), and his message was "Well, we won." We??? You didn't win shit, Captain Fairweather. It's silly enough to say "we" unless you're talking about the team from the school you attended, even though I do it sometimes, but to use it when you don't even have a single strong rooting interest? No, no, no.

3) We have to read obnoxious, insulting columns like this one, in which the inimitably bad Scoop Jackson puts down 95% of Cubs fans, calls them out for not hating the Sox enough, and then has the gall not only to wonder why Cubs fans hate the Sox, but to play the race card in discussing it! This isn't the first time Jackson has accused Cubs followers of racism; one of the first posts I ever made in the blog format of this site was a rebuttal to his column suggesting that Dusty Baker was being run out of town for being black. Here's one bit from this column that stands out:

"There's something racial about this," one South Sider says at Murphy's, another Wrigleyville landmark. "It doesn't make any sense for a third of the city to hate the Sox like this."

Give me a fucking break. For starters, you're going to tell me Sox fans don't hate the Cubs? Of course they do! Is it okay because Cubs fans are saddled with the "white yuppie" rep? A couple posts ago, Justin noted in the comments that he knows Sox fans who would curse the Cubs with their last breath. The irrational hate is coming from which side?

Meanwhile, I don't know about you, but I don't hear "Sox fans" and think "black people," no matter how large the minority population on the South Side may be. I think "heavy-set white guy with a thick Chicago accent, possibly with a mustache, broken capillaries in his cheeks, and a blue-collar job." I doubt most Cubs fans think differently. If you have to ascribe the hate to something other than simple fair play - why shouldn't I hate the Sox and their fans when the reverse is so often true? - you could ascribe it to socioeconomic differences, but that's grasping at straws. I don't hate the Sox because I hate poor people. Doesn't that sound ridiculous as even a suggestion? Yet somehow Jackson can write the equivalent of "Cubs fans hate minorities" and get his bullshit published.

I hate the Sox and their fans for one simple reason: they hate me. I think readers of this blog had figured that out by now; Jackson, despite apparently living in this city, doesn't seem to get it. Is he trying to justify his obvious Cubs disdain by pulling the old playground defense of "They started it?" Guess what: that doesn't fly. The hate flows both ways, and if the Cubs had won the Series last night, the beer would not be flowing happily in South Side bars - and if you think otherwise, you're kidding yourself. And you don't know Sox fans.

No one "started" it. It's perfectly natural, and basically expected, for two teams in the same city (or even just the same general area) to develop a rivalry. I challenge you to name a place where this isn't true. It may not always be quite as strong as this one seems to be, but so what? You give as good as you get, and that's how it goes. And that's okay. But Jackson seems to be claiming that Cubs fans are the instigators, which is like calling the chicken a fucker for laying the egg. It's just stupid. The whole point of a rivalry is to be rivals. If I threw a party when the Sox won, what kind of rivalry is that?

In the end, who's whinier? The team that complains about not winning the World Series or the team that spends most of its time deriding the first team and then just can't understand it when they win it all and the first team isn't happy for them? I've got my money on the latter. Am I bitter that the Sox won the World Series? No, not really. But this martyrdom shit they're trying to pull in its wake? That bothers me, along with the fact that - I suppose predictably - it took about two seconds for most Sox fans to invoke Cubs fans in a concerted effort to rub our noses in it. Not only is that bad on its own, but it's going to half-ruin any future Cubs World Series win for me, because I won't just be able to be happy; my thoughts are going to be drawn to the Sox, and their fans, and how thank God this is finally going to shut them up for a while. I have no desire to make the Sox center stage of my celebration, not like people are trying to do to the Cubs with a "let's all point and laugh, children" attitude. You know what? Fuck you guys.

So, okay. We all get it. The Sox won. Good for them. I'm happy for the minority of fans who aren't going to spend the next decade being obnoxious about it. For the rest of them, I don't really care one way or the other. I'd rather not expend any hate on it; it's a waste of my energy, and, if Jackson's column is anything to go by, it's exactly what Sox fans want. They want Cubs fans to seethe, and resent them, all so they can point and say, "See! They hate us!" Come next year, this city is only going to have forty thousand Sox fans once again, and everything will more or less return to normal.

The White Sox won the World Series. Now let us never speak of it again.

Never mind.

Of course, a couple innings after I finished that post last night, the White Sox won again thanks to Geoff Blum (who?), though not before they kept me up until 1:30, guaranteeing I would feel lousy all day today. Despite the fact that the Series has been somewhat competitive - three games decided by five runs total - that doesn't mean much if the Sox are just going to roll. And I think they will; it's hard to imagine them losing tonight with everything else going on (the Astros demoralized, starting their worst starter). So I'd better get at least one more list out of the way before the season ends. Partially per Jan's request, assuming that request wasn't sarcastic (and if it was, ha ha Jan, you bastard, you get another list)...

The Top Ten Series-Defining Pitching Performances in Postseason History

Honorable Mention: Mike Scott
Because Scott's team - the 1986 Astros - didn't get out of the NLCS, he is confined to honorable mention. But just think: had the Astros been able to clone Scott, they might have been in the World Series 19 years before now. Scott took the hill in Game One and threw a complete-game five-hitter; after the Astros had lost the next two games, Scott came back in Game Four and threw a complete-game three-hitter for a 3-1 win. With a 2-0 record, an ERA of 0.50, and 19 strikeouts to one walk in 18 innings, Scott was named MVP of the series even though the Mets won every game he didn't start to take the NLCS in six games.

Honorable Mention: Whitey Ford and Johnny Podres
Combined, New York's Ford and Brooklyn's Podres won four of the 1955 World Series' seven games, taking two each. Ford won Games One and Six, the latter a complete-game four-hitter; Podres, the Series MVP, threw complete games in Games Three and Seven, the latter a 2-0 shutout that won the Dodgers the Series. Oddly, while this was expected of Ford, Podres was hardly Brooklyn's ace; he had gone just 9-10 during the season. (Dodger ace Don Newcombe had gone 20-5 that season and won the first ever Cy Young Award the next year, but was 0-1 with a 9.53 ERA in the Series.) Points off because the Series' stars never actually had to face each other and because they played on opposing teams.

10. Grover Cleveland Alexander, 1926 World Series
An aging Alexander, 39 years old, wasn't making his last Series appearance, but two years later, he gave up 11 ER in 5 IP in a Cardinals loss. 1926, on the other hand, was his last hurrah. He threw complete games in Games Two and Six, 6-2 and 10-2 wins for St. Louis. Jesse Haines had as good of a Series - as with Ol' Pete, Haines was 2-0 and his 1.08 ERA was even slightly better - but Alexander gained legendary status when he came into Game Seven to replace Haines. With the bases loaded and the Cardinals clinging to a 3-2 lead, Alexander entered with two outs and struck out Tony Lazzeri. Alexander then put the Yankees down in order in the eighth, and the ninth inning, improbably, ended when Babe Ruth walked and was subsequently caught stealing second. Alexander allowed just three earned runs in 20.1 innings while striking out 17, but it was his save - possibly the most famous of the first half of the century - that makes his Series so memorable.

9. The Dean Brothers, 1934 World Series
They combined for 49 wins in the 1934 season, and Dizzy and Paul Dean were just as good in the Series. Dizzy threw a complete game to win Game One 8-3; after Detroit won Game Two, Paul went the distance in a 4-1 Cardinals win in Game Three. The Tigers evened things at two games, then went up 3-2 when they beat Dizzy 3-1 in Game Five. However, that was the lone blemish for the pair. Paul outdueled Schoolboy Rowe 4-3 in Game Six (both threw complete games), and Dizzy blanked Detroit in an 11-0 Game Seven laugher. For the Series, Dizzy and Paul won all four games for the Cardinals, threw four complete games, and had a combined 1.43 ERA (seven ER in 44 IP, including just two ER in 18 IP for Paul).

8. Mickey Lolich, 1968 World Series
Denny McLain won 30 games that year, but the Series was Lolich's show. After McLain lost Game One, Lolich threw a complete game and even hit a home run in an 8-1 Game Two win. The Cardinals won the next two games - roughing up McLain in Game Four - but Lolich returned in Game Five with another complete game in a 5-3 win. The Series returned to St. Louis with the Cardinals up 3-2, but after McLain won Game Six (thanks in large part to ten runs in Detroit's half of the third inning), Lolich came back after just two days off and threw his third complete game of the Series, outdueling Bob Gibson in a 4-1 win that brought the title to the Motor City.

7. Bob Gibson, 1967 World Series
He was beaten in 1968, but '67 was Gibson's show. He threw a complete game in a 2-1 Game One win, then tossed a five-hit shutout in Game Four to put the Cards up three games to one. After Boston rebounded to even things at three apiece, Gibson returned in Game Seven and shut the Red Sox down again. He threw a complete game, allowing two runs on three hits in a 7-2 Cardinals win - he also hit a solo home run in the fifth that put St. Louis up 3-0; in other words, he provided his own winning run.

6. Jack Morris, 1991 World Series
Morris has 254 career wins but is not in the Hall of Fame, largely due to his style of inning-eating pitching that generates a fairly high ERA. In the 1991 Series, however, Morris was as strong as he'd ever been. Though he walked nine with just 15 strikeouts, he only let in three earned runs in three games. He went 2-0 with a 1.17 ERA, winning Game One and, of course, throwing a ten-inning complete game shutout in the seventh game as the Twins won.

5. Curt Schilling and Randy Johnson, 2001 World Series
The Yankees wish this tag team didn't exist, because they had little trouble with the rest of the Arizona staff. In Game One, Schilling went seven innings, allowing just one run and three hits in a 9-1 D-Backs win. The next night, Johnson threw a three-hit shutout. The Yankees squeaked past Brian Anderson in Game Three and beat Byung-Hyun Kim after Schilling left another seven-inning, one-run, three-hit performance in Game Four. Game Five saw the Yankees win again as neither Schilling nor Johnson threw in the game, but when the Series returned to Arizona, Johnson allowed two runs in seven innings as the Diamondbacks rolled 15-2, and the seventh game featured both of them. Schilling went six dominating innings, but then, clinging to a 1-0 lead, allowed the tying run in the seventh and the go-ahead Yankee run in the eighth. Two outs later, Johnson - the day after starting - came back and mowed down four straight Yankees, allowing the bottom of the ninth to happen. (Incidentally, the winning run was scored by Jay Bell, who entered the game pinch-hitting for Johnson in that ninth.) The duo were named co-MVPs of the Series - they won all four games while losing none (Johnson was 3-0), combined for 45 strikeouts in 38.2 innings, and allowed just six total earned runs for a combined ERA of 1.40.

4. Orval Overall and Mordecai "Three-Finger" Brown, 1908 World Series
In the second of back-to-back World Series victories and - sigh - the last one the Cubs would win to date, Overall and Brown absolutely dominated the Tigers. They combined to win all four games, recording three complete games. Their combined ERA was 0.61 - two earned runs allowed, both by Overall. Overall recorded one out in the seventh inning of Game One; Brown came in and got the last six outs - meanwhile, the Cubs scored five runs in the top of the ninth to take Game One 10-6 and give Brown his first win. The next day, Overall threw a complete-game four-hitter to put the Cubs up 2-0. After Detroit took Game Three, Brown threw a four-hit shutout in Game Four, and Overall finished things the next day with a three-hit shutout in Game Five. For the Series, the Tigers hit just .209, and if you remove Ty Cobb's seven hits, the rest of the team hit a mere .187.

3. Sandy Koufax, 1965 World Series
Koufax actually lost Game Two 5-1, putting the Twins up 2-0 on the Dodgers, but only two of the runs were his and only one was earned. It would be his last. The Dodgers won the next two games, and Koufax won Game Five with a four-hit shutout. The Twins won Game Six, but Koufax returned after just two days off and threw a three-hit shutout in Game Seven to give Los Angeles the Series. Named MVP, Koufax allowed just one earned run in three games for a 0.38 ERA, and he struck out 29 in 24.0 total innings.

2. Lew Burdette, 1957 World Series
One of the greatest performances by a guy few today have ever heard of, Burdette almost singlehandedly won the Braves their last Series before 1995. After Warren Spahn lost Game One, Burdette went the distance in a 4-2 Game Two win. The Yankees rolled in Game Three, but after Spahn's ten-inning complete game (capped by Eddie Mathews' walkoff home run) won Game Four, Burdette came back with a seven-hit shutout in Game Five. The Yankees squeaked out Game Six, but Burdette threw a second shutout in Game Seven at Yankee Stadium. For the Series, the MVP was 3-0, with three complete games and a 0.67 ERA - just two earned runs in 27 innings.

1. Orel Hershiser, 1988 playoffs
1988 was Hershiser's year. He was named MVP of both the NLCS and World Series, and with good cause. In the NLCS, he went just 1-0, but that wasn't his fault so much - in Game One, he left with one out in the ninth and a 2-1 lead, only to see Jay Howell give up the losing two-run double to Gary Carter. Hershiser started again after just three days off in Game Three and was the pitcher of record when the Dodgers took a 4-3 lead in the top of the eighth, but it took four Los Angeles relievers to record the next three outs, and in the same span the Mets scored five times. Hershiser earned a save the very next night when he got the last out in a 5-4, twelve-inning win that evened the series at two games apiece. Returning for the seventh game, Orel decided not to leave anything to chance and threw a complete-game, five-hit shutout. The Dodgers won 6-0 and rolled into the Series, where Hershiser threw a three-hit shutout in the second game and another complete game, this one with four hits, in the 5-2 clinching victory in Game Five. For the 1988 playoffs, Hershiser was 3-0 with a save, three complete games, two shutouts, 32 strikeouts to just 25 hits, and an ERA of 1.05.

It's about time this Series got more interesting

A four-game sweep? Where's the fun in that? (It was easily the worst part of last year, I'll tell you what.) I may be rooting ever so slightly for the Sox, but not so much that I want to see the Series go by the wayside that quickly. Seriously - aside from the period between 1998 and 2000 when the Yankees lost just one of thirteen World Series games (gag me), the Fall Classic hasn't been consistently non-competitive (including last year's sweep) since the period between 1988 and 1990 when the losing team took just one total game (4-1 Dodgers, 4-0 A's, 4-0 Reds). These things seem to cycle (that span followed the 1985-1986-1987 corridor in which every Series went seven, and was followed by 1991-1992-1993 in which the first went seven and the next two went six, the latter ending on Joe Carter's home run), so let's hope we're in for some good ones the next couple years. You know, some good ones? In the meantime, maybe the Astros will be able to at least take this six. I'd settle for that. Of course, the Sox could still win this game (as I write this, it's only going into the eleventh, but I can't wait any longer to submit this post), but the Astros could too. And at least it's in extras.

While I'm in a listmaking mood, here's my take on another one:

The Ten Most Overlooked Home Runs in Postseason History

Honorable Mention: Pedro Guerrero and Steve Yeager
With the 1981 World Series tied at two games apiece, the Dodgers and Yankees engage in a pitchers' duel in Game Five. Ron Guidry goes seven and allows just four hits for New York; Jerry Reuss throws a complete-game five-hitter for L.A. With the Yankees up 1-0 in the seventh, Guerrero and Yeager - the #6 and #7 hitters on the team - go deep in back-to-back at-bats for the Dodgers. Los Angeles wins the game 2-1 and finishes the Series in its sixth game three days later.

10. Lenny Dykstra
Dykstra actually has two big - and generally overlooked - home runs on his resume, seven years apart. The first came in Game Three of the 1986 NLCS, a two-run shot in the bottom of the ninth that won the game 6-5 for the Mets and gave them a 2-1 lead in the series. (It was also the last NLCS walkoff home run for 18 years.) Seven years later to the day, Dykstra won Game Five of the 1993 NLCS for the Phillies, 4-3, with a solo home run in the top of the tenth. The Phillies won two nights later as well and returned to the World Series (one which, of course, spawned a much more famous blast.)

9. George Brett
Brett's most famous home run against the Yankees featured pine tar, but his three-run shot off Goose Gossage in Game Three of the 1980 ALCS was bigger. It sent the Royals to their first World Series, turning a 2-1 seventh-inning deficit into a 4-2 win; it came off a prime-of-his-career Gossage, who was largely unhittable at the time and had an ERA under 1.00 the next year; and it embarrassed the Yankees with a 3-0 sweep that closed out at the Stadium. Though they made it back to the World Series in the strike year of '81, this wipeout largely signaled the start of one of the longest periods of dormancy in Yankee history, with not a single playoff appearance between 1981 and 1995.

8. David Justice
We could have been headed for another 1991 Game Seven in the sixth game of the 1995 World Series, but Justice's solo shot in the sixth inning off Cleveland reliever Jim Poole provided the only run of the game. It was just enough to back up eight innings of one-hit ball from Tom Glavine and bring the Braves their first World Series title since 1957 and the only one (to date) of the Bobby Cox era.

7. Sandy Alomar Jr.
The only hiccup in the Yankee resurgence of 1996-2000 came at the hands of the Indians in 1997, and was largely thanks to Alomar's shot. His second of the series, it came in the eighth inning off Mariano Rivera - a year into his run as Captain Unhittable in the postseason - to tie the game. The Indians won that fourth game 3-2 in the ninth and took Game Five the next night to send New York packing.

6. Edgar Martinez
While we're on the subject of the Yankees losing, how about Martinez? The fifth game of the 1995 ALDS is the one everyone remembers, with Ken Griffey Jr. scoring from first on a Martinez double in the eleventh, but that doesn't happen without Game Four. The score was tied 6-6 going into the bottom of the eighth, but after John Wetteland loaded the bases, Martinez smacked a grand slam that all but guaranteed his heroics the next night. (Jay Buhner hit a solo shot two batters later to make it 11-6, and the Yankees picked up two in the top of the ninth, but the slam stood up.)

5. Rick Monday
Monday may be best known for a flag-saving catch he made while with the Cubs, but the biggest home run of his career came in the 1981 NLCS. With a pitchers' duel between Fernando Valenzuela and the Expos' Ray Burris knotted at one in the top of the ninth, Monday came up with two outs and drove a solo home run off Montreal reliever Steve Rogers. Bob Welch slammed the door in the bottom of the inning and Los Angeles eventually won the World Series.

4. Jack Clark
Surely Cardinals fans remember this one, but most casual fans are much more likely to think of the Ozzie Smith home run that ended Game Five of the 1985 NLCS. Clark's shot came at Dodger Stadium and so couldn't end the game as Smith's did, but it did effectively end the series. Facing Tom Niedenfuer - the same pitcher off whom Smith went deep - Clark came up in the top of the ninth with two on and two outs. The Cardinals trailed 5-4 following Mike Marshall's home run in the bottom of the eighth, but Clark's home run made it 7-5, and that's how the game finished. Perhaps if the Cardinals had ended up winning the World Series this would have a more storied place in the lore.

3. Hal Smith
Everyone, of course, knows Bill Mazeroski, but he likely wouldn't have had a chance to be the hero of the 1960 World Series if not for the unlikely Hal Smith. Smith, the Pirates' backup catcher, came up in the bottom of the eighth with Pittsburgh down 7-6, with two out and two on. He had only entered the game in the top of the inning and was making just his eighth trip to the plate in the whole Series, yet took Jim Coates out of the yard. The Yankees would end up tying it in the top of the ninth, but obviously we know what happened next. (Interestingly, Mazeroski - with 11 home runs in 538 at-bats during the 1960 season - was even less of a threat to homer than was Smith, who hit 11 in just 258 trips.)

2. Bernie Carbo
Carbo does tend to get some credit, but it's hard not to be overshadowed by Carlton Fisk. Have you ever seen video footage of Carbo's home run? And if so, were you alive in 1975? Because I wasn't and can't recall doing so. It was only just last week that I saw footage of Dwight Evans' catch on a Joe Morgan drive, pretty important in and of itself. Carbo came up in the bottom of the eighth with the Reds having extended their lead to 6-3 on a Cesar Geronimo home run in the top of the inning. With two on and two out, Carbo came in as a pinch-hitter and took Rawly Eastwick over the wall. Four innings later, cue Fisk. With the exception of Kirk Gibson in the 1988 Series, Carbo's home run may be the biggest moment for a pinch-hitter in, at the very least, World Series history.

1. Don Baylor
In his book Now I Can Die in Peace, Bill Simmons suggests that you can identify a bandwagon Red Sox fan based on his memories of the fifth game of the 1986 ALCS, with the bandwagoners showing their colors by not remembering Baylor's home run. Everyone, of course, remembers Dave Henderson - though my guess is that few people who aren't Sox fans remember that Henderson's shot did not end the game, that the Angels tied it in the bottom of the ninth, and that Boston only finally won in the eleventh - but Hendu can't do it without Don. Baylor came up with one man down and the Angels holding a then-sizable 5-2 lead. Facing Mike Witt, Baylor's two-run shot cut the lead to 5-4 and allowed Henderson's two-run blast off Donnie Moore to give the Red Sox the lead. Even though it took a sacrifice fly two innings later (which, fittingly, was hit by Henderson and scored Baylor) to win the game, the double home run punch in the ninth effectively ended the series for the Angels - they went down quietly in Games Six and Seven despite returning to Boston with a 3-2 series lead, and didn't even make the playoffs again until they won the World Series in 2002.

The Wizard of Pods

Just really weird. When Podsednik knocked it out, I actually yelled out loud, "Are you kidding me???" This prompted Alma, in the other room and with no idea about what I was yelling, to reply, "...no?"

You've already heard the stats, of course: Podsednik now has two postseason home runs after having none in 507 at-bats during the regular season; he's only the 14th guy in history to end a World Series game with a dinger. Well, here's something you haven't seen: those home runs, ranked.

The Top 14 World Series Walkoff Home Runs of All-Time

14. Chad Curtis
The Situation: Game Three of the 1999 World Series. The Yankees had already won the first two games in Atlanta by a combined 11-3 score. The Braves led 5-1 in this third game, but the Yankees came back with one in the fifth, one in the seventh, and two more in the eighth (on a Chuck Knoblauch home run). Mariano Rivera threw two scoreless innings in the ninth and tenth, and Curtis led off the bottom of the tenth with his second home run of the game, a solo shot that gave the Yankees the 5-4 win.
Series Result: The Yankees end up winning in four straight games for the second straight year.
Why It's Here: No home run on this list carried quite so little ultimate drama as Curtis'. His team was already up 2-0, they had two more home games coming up even if they lost this one, and the Braves' bats were freezing; besides Bret Boone, who hit a stunning .538, no one on the Braves who had at least seven at-bats in the four-game series hit better than .231, and Andruw Jones and Brian Jordan were a combined 2-for-26. This didn't turn any tides, that's for sure.

13. Mark McGwire
The Situation: Game Three of the 1988 World Series (which, of course, features a more famous shot we'll see later). The Dodgers have taken the first two at home and the A's desperately need a win, which they get. Four Oakland pitchers hold L.A. to one run on eight hits, and while the A's get only five hits, the last is a solo bomb from a young McGwire in the bottom of the ninth to pull Oakland within 2-1 in the series.
Series Result: Oakland doesn't win again; 4-1, Dodgers.
Why It's Here: While McGwire's homer could theoretically have been a momentum changer, it wasn't. The A's lost Game Four and were shut down (two runs on four hits) by Series MVP Orel Hershiser in a complete-game Game Five clincher. The home run was also McGwire's only sign of life in the entire series, all but literally; in five games, he hit 1-for-17, .059. Only Jose Canseco - who popped out right before McGwire's blast - was worse, going just 1-for-19, .053. (For the series, three A's regulars hit below .100. And you wonder why they lost?)

12. Dusty Rhodes
The Situation: Game One of the 1954 World Series. The Indians, winners six years prior, had won 111 games in the regular season, but that didn't stop the Giants from stealing one. The Indians got two in the first, but New York tied it back up with two in the third and it stayed that way until the bottom of the tenth. After Willie Mays walked and stole second, Hank Thompson was walked intentionally to bring up Monte Irvin. Rhodes came on to pinch-hit for Irvin and took Bob Lemon - in his tenth inning of work - out of the yard for a three-run homer and a 5-2 win.
Series Result: The Giants end up shutting down the powerhouse Indians in four straight games.
Why It's Here: A pinch-hit home run is pretty dramatic (again, see below), but Rhodes wasn't nursing any lingering injuries, and the Giants ended up running away with the Series, as the Indians hit a brutal .190 as a team. With that kind of pounding in effect, any drama is pretty much canceled out.

11. Tommy Henrich
The Situation: Game One of the 1949 World Series. Henrich becomes the first man ever to hit a walkoff home run in a Series game, as his solo shot off Don Newcombe in the bottom of the ninth opened the scoring and ended the game, 1-0.
Series Result: The Yankees lose Game Two by the same 1-0 score, but win easily in five.
Why It's Here: Though it deserves credit for starting a trend, Henrich's homer isn't well-remembered and rightfully so; the Yankees mostly coasted in this Series and surely would have won with or without Henrich's help.

10. Scott Podsednik
The Situation: Game Two of the 2005 World Series. Despite having no home runs in the 2005 season, the light-hitting Podsednik smacks his second of the playoffs in the bottom of the ninth - even more improbably, it comes off of Houston Astros closer Brad Lidge, usually lights-out (though this is the second straight appearance in which Lidge has conceded a home run that lost his team the game). The White Sox win 7-6.
Series Result: As of this writing, the White Sox hold a 2-0 lead.
Why It's Here: It's too soon to rank this one any higher, and if things keep going the Sox's way, it won't deserve to be any higher. With all the bounces that have gone Chicago's way in these playoffs, was anyone really expecting Jose Vizcaino's two-run single to slow down the Sox?

9. Mickey Mantle
The Situation: Game Three of the 1964 World Series. Entering the twilight of his career (1964 was the then-32-year-old Mantle's last season with 30 home runs, 100 RBI, as many as 110 hits, and a .300 average), Mantle belts what is, aside from his 500th home run in 1967, pretty much his last hurrah - though he hits three home runs in the Series and this is only the first, Mantle's blast in the bottom of the ninth makes the Yankees 2-1 winners and gives them a 2-1 Series lead.
Series Result: Though Mantle hits another in Game Seven, the Cardinals win it 7-5 and take the Series 4-3.
Why It's Here: It's a dramatic moment for an aging star, but Mantle's walkoff didn't even help his team win the Series, as the Yankees fell to a team with better pitching (MVP Bob Gibson was 2-1 with a 3.00 ERA and 31 Ks in 27 IP for the Redbirds).

8. Derek Jeter
The Situation: Game Four of the 2001 World Series. The reigning three-time champions, the Yankees are on the ropes after having lost the first two games in Arizona by a combined 13-1. The Diamondbacks can't pitch Schilling and Johnson in every game, though. New York squeaks by 2-1 in Game Three, and while Schilling dominates again in Game Four, he leaves before the eighth. Byung-Hyun Kim coasts through the eighth, but runs into trouble the next inning, conceding a game-tying two-run shot to Tino Martinez. He comes out for the tenth, his third inning, but while Scott Brosius and Alfonso Soriano fly out, Jeter takes Kim deep again to win the game 4-3 and even the Series at 2-2.
Series Result: The first chink in Mariano Rivera's armor came in Game Seven of this one, as the Diamondbacks won the Series in dramatic fashion, four games to three.
Why It's Here: Again, Jeter's team didn't end up winning the Series, and they hit just .183 as a team. Jeter, despite the Game Four heroics, had an uncharacteristically lousy Series, hitting just .148. This solo shot was his only RBI, and he struck out six times.

7. Alex Gonzalez
The Situation: Game Four of the 2003 World Series. Down 2-1 after losing Games Two and Three by matching 6-1 scores, the Marlins need a win at home to get back into it. They score three runs in the first and then cling on for dear life, but all seems lost to typical Yankee magic as New York scores two in the ninth on a Ruben Sierra pinch-hit triple to tie it. Chad Fox and Braden Looper combine to shut down the Yankees over three extra innings, however, and Gonzalez leads off the bottom of the twelfth with a solo bomb off Jeff Weaver to win it 4-3 for the Fish.
Series Result: The Marlins win the next two as well and take the Series in six.
Why It's Here: Things were probably starting to look like "same old Yankees" at this point, so Gonzalez's home run can be considered a legitimate tide-turner. That said, it doesn't have quite the same cachet of the six above it.

6. Carlton Fisk
The Situation: Game Six of the 1975 World Series. Trailing Cincinnati 3-2 but having the final two games at home, the Red Sox are down 6-3 in the bottom of the eighth when Bernie Carbo hits a dramatic two-out, pinch-hit three-run homer to tie it. The game goes to extras, where Dick Drago and Rick Wise hold the Reds scoreless thanks in part to Dwight Evans' catch that robbed Joe Morgan of at least extra bases. Fisk led off the bottom of the twelfth and hit a towering shot to left; his waving of the ball fair while starting down the first base line remains one of the most indelible images in postseason history.
Series Result: The Reds refuse to fold up after Fisk's heroics, winning Game Seven and the series by a 4-3 count.
Why It's Here: Ooh, controversial! But let's face it: Fisk's home run, no matter how dramatic, didn't win the Series, and his team even ended up losing on top of that. If I were ranking these home runs in a vacuum, Fisk might make the top five (though the competition is stiff), but just because it took place on TV doesn't make it better than it was. And if you add in the context, where it wasn't even part of a winning Series, that puts it here.

5. Eddie Mathews
The Situation: Game Four of the 1957 World Series. In their first Series since moving to Milwaukee, the Braves find themselves down two games to one to the defending champion Yankees. In Game Four, Hank Aaron and Frank Torre both homer to stake Warren Spahn to a 4-1 lead after four innings, but Spahn gives it away with three in the ninth and the game goes to extras. The lefty gives up another run in the top of the tenth, but after a John Logan double tied the game for the Braves, Mathews - in only the sixth year of a Hall of Fame career - hit a two-run blast to give Milwaukee the win, evening the Series.
Series Result: Behind deserving MVP Lew Burdette, the Braves win Game Five 1-0 and Game Seven 5-0 to win the Series 4-3.
Why It's Here: It may not be as endlessly replayed as the Fisk home run - largely because it can't be - but Mathews' shot came for a team that ended up winning its Series, even if Burdette was probably the most directly responsible for that. Mathews is also one of only three 500-homer men to join the Series walkoff club.

4. Kirk Gibson
The Situation: Game One of the 1988 World Series. Dennis Eckersley had just started his run as the game's most dominant closer, but he couldn't hold a 4-3 lead here. Pinch-hitter Mike Davis walked with two outs, bringing up a hobbling Gibson, who wasn't even expected to show up in the Series but came on for pinch-hit duty. After Davis stole second unnecessarily, Gibson drove Eckersley's pitch into the right field stands to win the game 5-4, causing Jack Buck to proclaim, "I don't believe what I just saw!"
Series Result: Despite Mark McGwire's shot in Game Three - making 1988 the only Series with multiple walkoffs - the Dodgers waltzed over the A's in five.
Why It's Here: It was just Game One, and it was a Series that the Dodgers cruised in, but you could make the case that Gibson's home run set the tone. It certainly didn't set the tone for Gibson, who didn't make another appearance in any of the remaining four games, but it sure put the A's on the road to ruin. Plus, I mean, I don't believe what I just saw. That alone is good for Top Five.

3. Kirby Puckett
The Situation: Game Six of the 1991 World Series. Setting the stage for a long, dramatic Game Seven, Puckett evened the Series for the Twins. The Braves squeezed out a run in the seventh to tie the game at three, but nothing more happened until the bottom of the eleventh, when Puckett led off with a solo shot off Charlie Liebrandt, spawning another famous Jack Buck call - "And we'll see you tomorrow night!"
Series Result: The Twins won Game Seven in their last at-bat as well, and took the series 4-3.
Why It's Here: Among home runs that did not directly win a Series, Puckett's is the tops. It came about as late as possible, it created a great call, and it led to a Series win for its team.

2. Joe Carter
The Situation: Game Six of the 1993 World Series. The Phillies, down three games to two, lead 6-5 after a five-run seventh inning; they bring out Mitch Williams to start the ninth, hoping to send the Series to a seventh game. The Blue Jays have other ideas. After a Rickey Henderson walk and a Devon White flyout, Paul Molitor singles and Carter goes deep off Williams to win the Jays their second consecutive Series.
Series Result: Well, duh. Jays in six.
Why It's Here: For one thing, it's one of just two walkoffs that was hit with the winning team trailing at the time (Gibson's is the other). For another, it's one of just two home runs to win a World Series and one of just seven to win a playoff series. But how many home runs effectively ended the career of a solid player? Williams had 43 saves in 1993 and 172 between 1988 and 1993 - but after Carter's blast, Wild Thing made just 52 more appearances in three years with three different teams, racking up a 2-7 record and just six saves before he was finally gone from the league after a brief stint with the Royals in 1997. By comparison, Eckersley put up a 0.61 ERA two years after Gibson's home run. It's quite possible that this was the single most damaging hit in the history of baseball. Carter had three more 100-RBI seasons but never returned to the playoffs; this was, as the call went, the biggest home run of his life.

1. Bill Mazeroski
The Situation: Game Seven of the 1960 World Series. In their three wins, the Pirates had won 14-8; the Yankees had won their three by a margin of 38-3. A slugfest in Game Seven didn't seem to benefit Pittsburgh, and trailing 7-4 going into the bottom of the eighth, it might have seemed a long shot. But the Pirates tagged Bobby Shantz and Jim Coates for five runs that inning to take a 9-7 lead, going ahead on a three-run home run by backup catcher Hal Smith. New York tied it back up in the top of the ninth, but Mazeroski, leading off the bottom of the inning, won the game 10-9 by knocking it over the left field wall of Forbes Field - the first man ever to end a postseason series on a home run.
Series Result: Pirates, 4-3.
Why It's Here: You can't deny this one for several reasons. First of all, it was the first home run to end a postseason series and is still one of only two World Series-ending walkoffs. Second, it defeated the Yankees, the AL powerhouse who missed the Series just twice between 1949 and 1964. Third, it brought the Pirates their first Series in 35 years. And fourth, it was Game Seven, the moment of truth for both teams (even if the Blue Jays had lost Game Six, there was another coming). You just can't get any more dramatic than this.

One more... this week.

Sox-Astros. Probably better than Sox-Cardinals - at least there aren't too many Astros fans around here - but certainly not great. I keep going back and forth on whether the Sox winning would actually be a good thing or not - I really don't like the Astros, but the Sox? In Gene Wojciechowski's article on ESPN.com, he has one person quoted whose thoughts more or less sum up mine:

"People have tried to convince me to root for them," Szczudlo says. "I'm sorry, I can't do it. I'd feel like I was betraying [the Cubs]. I don't think it would be true. It would be like I was abandoning them."

Szczudlo admits it: she's jealous and sad, too. "I know there are Cubs fans who are cheering for the city of Chicago," she says. "But the extremists are feeling like I do."

I don't feel like I'd be abandoning the Cubs per se - after all, a mild rooting interest in the White Sox isn't quite the same as going to the Phone Booth with a Sox jersey on (though good luck getting a ticket, regardless) - but there is certainly the jealousy aspect, and some aspect of betrayal. For better or worse, there is a rivalry here - and rooting for your rival, no matter who they're playing, is generally uncommon. Were Red Sox fans rooting for the Yankees in the late 90s because at least one team from the AL East was winning titles? Were Duke fans glad to see North Carolina represent the ACC last year? Do Manchester City fans think fondly on Manchester United's dominance of the English Premier League because at least it's a team from Manchester? Hell fucking no.

So maybe I'm an extremist. But while I won't bother rooting vigorously against the Sox, I certainly don't plan on supporting them. I get the feeling I won't be missed on the bandwagon.

In other news, I won the lottery! If by "the lottery," you mean "three dollars in the lottery." If the Powerball jackpot rolls over, I'll find myself driving to Wisconsin again before Saturday to roll the three bucks over; if it doesn't, I'll probably just have Alma cash it on one of her trips there. I got the bucks for playing 29, as part of my birthdate, as the Powerball number in one of my sets.

I also played 4-8-15-16-23-42 just for grins, but it turns out that hundreds of people did the exact same thing (link taken from Alma's blog). Good thing it didn't win; can you imagine having the winning Powerball numbers and only getting 400 grand? (Not that I'd say no to 400 grand.)