If Boston can't win both of the Pedro starts, they will probably lose the series.

Agreed, but the Sox also have to win one of the first two games. If not, having to take four out of five, with John Burkett starting one of them, will be too big an obstacle.

I don't think Torre has much confidence in any of his relievers not named Mariano, so the key innings in all of these games might be the sixth through eighth, when Joe has to decide how long to go with his starters.

It seems like a mismatch on paper tonight; Wakefield doesn't have the greatest record against the Yankees, and the whole Boston team figures to be emotionally spent. So, on the proven theory that in baseball, youneverknow, I'll predict a thriller. Grady was forced into an interesting lineup; I actually like Walker-Mueller-Garciaparra better at the top of the order than Damon-Garciaparra-Walker.

Is it just me, or does Grady Little sound like Bill from King of the Hill? It is very difficult to take him seriously in interviews.

Boom! David Ortiz hits a monster 2-run shot to open the scoring.

The Moose looks like he's had a few too many days off. I can't imagine that it's nerves but he's been all over the place and sorrowly missed his mark on the Ortiz blast.

Wakefield's also got off lucky a couple times, especially with Aaron Boone. He kept a could of knucklers up in the Zone but Boone was early on three of them and ended up pulling them way foul into the second and third decks.

I can't see the Yankees being behind for much longer in this game.

This one is far from over, but the Red Sox have made Mussina throw more than 80 pitches in four innings. Wakefield has it dancing, but as Robert pointed out, that can change on a moment's notice.

Earlier, there was a good graphic about Nomar, who swung at the first pitch 53% of the time this year, but hit .340 doing it. He slugged .617 on 0-0 counts, with 9 HR. Of course, if you decide to waste a pitch to take advantage of that impatience, Garciaparra hit .348 on 1-0 counts, with 5 HR in just 66 AB. And if you manage to get him to a full count, which happened just 30 times this year, he's unreal -- .467 average, .647 OBP, 1.000 SLG. Makes you appreciate Aquilino Lopez keeping him hitless, with 3 K's in 5 AB.

Fox is also running some of the clever lines about the knuckler, but I haven't seen my favourite yet. According to Charlie Lau, "There are two theories on catching the knuckleball. Unfortunately, neither one works."

Bob Uecker said it was easy to catch. "Wait till it stops rolling, then pick it up." The great raconteur also would have us believe, "Niekro struck out a hitter once and I never touched the ball. It hit me in the shinguard, bounced out to Clete Boyer at third base and he threw out the runner at first. Talk about a weird assist: 2-5-3 on a strikeout."

Oh. My. God. Overruling a call of foul and turning it into a homer? Have they lost their minds?

RF ump Angel Hernandez, standing no more than 100 feet away, somehow failed to see Todd Walker's blast hit the pole. Home plate ump Tim Mcclelland got it right, and it's 3-0, but the original call was supremely bad.

Not a great night for the Moose, now at 95 pitches. Manny Ramirez steered one just over the right field fence and it's 4-0 for Boston. Had it hit the top of the wall, the big hot dog would have settled for a single, as he didn't bother running.

My guess is there must have been a bank of lights that effected Hernandez's call. He was really deep in right field and was probably looking pretty much straight up to see the ball.

The way we know that the ball *actually* hit the foul pole is that if the fan had done anything to change the course of the ball and turn it into a HR, the upper-deckers at Yankee Stadium would have him hanging from the pole. I have no doubts.

As an umpire, I always felt that the three easiest calls were, in order: a HR when the ball hits the fould pole, the fair/foul call when the ball hits 1st or 3rd base and the fair/foul call when the ball hits the chalk line. How do you mess up the easiest call in the game from 100 (I think it was probably less) feet away?

Man, that bit about the Objective Yankee Fan and Todd Walker's homerun was hysterical. Major points to Fox.

Yeah, Jacko, that was a howl.

I'm loving this. Of course, I enjoyed the first game of Yankees-Twins. Speaking of which, we'll see if Wakefield is "bothered" as much as Ron Gardenhire thought Brad Radke was by the stretched-out version of "God Bless America." If there's an award for lamest excuse by a manager, Gardy has it all wrapped up.

Apparently, Ronan Tynan is doing the same job for the Yankees as Kate Smith once did for the Flyers. After the 2 1/2 minute dirge, Wakefield walks two batters on a total of nine pitches and is done.

McCarver is such an ass. Because he couldn't think of anything else to say, but longed (as always) to hear the sound of his own voice, he made a big fuss about how he'd rather see Embree pitch to Rivera than Timlin pitch to Sierra. Yeah, Timmy. It was the critical at-bat of this game. Perhaps you've been so busy yammering, you haven't noticed that Timlin went 13 up, 13 down with 5 K's against Oakland, and hasn't allowed a run in his last ten appearances?

Also, Rivera hits lefties well. Getting Sierra in the game shortens the Yankee bench and puts an inferior fielder into RF.

Now, we'll see if Grady has noticed who his best reliever is. Remember, if he'd left Timlin in against Oakland on Monday for more than one batter, it's highly unlikely the thrilling finish would have happened. With Giambi-Williams-Posada-Matsui coming up, if Little goes to Proven Closer Scott Williamson, he deserves to blow this lead.

Let's get a show of hands: who's rooting for the Yankees (like, sadly, me) and who's cheering for the Red Sox?

I really despise the Red Sox, and their sub-bush league antics so far this post-season have only intensified my antipathy. Just think if Jeremy Giambi was playing!

I'm with the Sox, I wanna see a Cubs-Sox World Series. Would anyone outside of Yankee and Marlin fans (if they actually exist) care if the Yankees met up with the Marlins?

I'm no fan of the Sox players - but Pedro deserves a ring on career value alone, and of course I'm rooting for the success of the Epstein-McCracken-James connection (now that the A's are gone). Also, if I see the Yankees in the WS again, I'm going to perform open-heart surgery on myself with a rusty spoon.

Let's get a show of hands: who's rooting for the Yankees (like, sadly, me) and who's cheering for the Red Sox?

I'm with you on the Yankees here. I can't see how anyone can pull for this Red Sox team. They're like a bunch of 13 year olds out there. Or maybe 13 year olds playing intramurals at summer Bible camp. (E.g. Trot Nixon explaining that Jesus helped him out with that game-winning home run. Or, e.g., instead of the usual high-fives after some marginal in-game success, these guys hug each other like they're long-lost brothers. I mean, these are grown men here. After like a sacrifice fly or something. Sheesh.)

I hate both teams. I'm a huge Pedro Martinez fan as you well know, John, so I'm reluctantly cheering for Pedro's juvenile teammates to help him get a WS ring.

I can't see how anyone can pull for this Red Sox team
Two words: George Steinbrenner.

I think we all know my stance on this.

After Game One, though, in the aftermath of the Division Series, I think we can all appreciate what a massive job the Blue Jays face.

http://stevebirnie@rogers.com
I agree that the Red Sox players' behaviour during the ALDS was childish and annoying. Actually, I wonder if there wasn't some sort of pre-existing tension between them and the As that cropped up very early on. Both dugouts during that series were the most animated, active, vocal dugouts I've seen in a baseball game. They REALLY seemed to want to beat the crap out of each other.

Despite that, and the fact I have no love for the Sox, I could NEVER bring myself to cheer for the Yanks. The Red Sox could run over my dog, burn down my house and steal my girlfriend, and they would still be the lesser of two evils.

Let's get a show of hands: who's rooting for the Yankees (like, sadly, me) and who's cheering for the Red Sox?

I always root for anyone who is playing the Yankees, and I want the
Yankees to not make the postseason sometime soon.

While George Steinbrenner is a good reason to root against the
Yankees, I also want baseball to maintain competitive balance. If one team makes it to the postseason every year, the best players
will want to sign there exclusively, thus leading to a vicious
cycle. (This isn't strictly a financial issue: Peter Angelos
has all the money in the world, but nobody good signs for Baltimore,
since they're not winning.)

This sort of thing is already happening in most of the world's soccer leagues.

Sorry about the weird formatting - I forgot that Batter's Box word wraps. (My emailer doesn't, and I occasionally get the two mixed up.)

In reading comments on this series, I have read little about Jose Contreras. The odd thing is that he was by far the Yankees most effective starter in the second half of the season, and yet he is likely to see very little work in this series.

The Yankees' starters, Mussina, Pettite, Clemens and Wells, looked very good against the Twins, but frankly none are top-flight starters any more. I suspect that if the Yankees gave Contreras the ball, they would find out that he indeed is. Sometimes teams get so wrapped up in their past, that they don't look carefully at what they have.

Incidentally, I'm rooting for the Red Sox. Not because they're an underdog, but because they're not the "overdog".

Like the most of you, I was torn. I'd gotten a real good dislike going for the Red Sox in the ALDS, because of the boorish behaviour as well as a general liking of the A's. I don't put much stock in the "cheer for the Red Sox because they're sabermetric thinkers" argument because they've got too much money for that to be interesting and Bill James himself has become a bit of a boor.
But then there's the Yanks, and if you don't hate the Yanks, you're not a baseball fan. I thought maybe I'd try to resolve the dilemna of which team to cheer for by making a little matrix: Yankees and Red Sox in the rows, things to like, things to dislike in the columns. But I didn't get around to writing anything down... just thinking about the "Yankees - things to dislike" cell, as a Blue Jay fan first and foremost, and seeing Roger Clemens & David Wells at the top of the list, it becomes obvious.

This leads to a strange double switch...
ALDS: Boo Red Sox!
ALCS: Go Red Sox!
WS: Boo Red Sox!

Assuming of course that it's the Cubs in the World Series. If it's the Fish, I'll be back in November.

I wish the Sox and the Yanks could both lose. That said, I'm pulling for a Cubs/Sox world series, with the Cubs taking the crown. Of course, every other team that I've been pulling for this post season has lost - hopefully I don't have some mighty reverse jinxing power.

Does anybody know any good sources for information on the salary arbitration process for MLB players? I am doing a paper for my Dispute Resolution class, and plan to make Pro Athlete Salary Arbitration its focus. Thanks guys.

http://economics.about.com
I wish the Sox and the Yanks could both lose. That said, I'm pulling for a Cubs/Sox world series, with the Cubs taking the crown. Of course, every other team that I've been pulling for this post season has lost - hopefully I don't have some mighty reverse jinxing power.

Am I the only one *not* pulling for that? I think the fact that these teams *never* win is one of the most enduring traditions in baseball. The media coverage if one of these teams will be incredibly irritating.

I imagine the White Sox would like it if the Red Sox win as it would give their streak a little more media attention.

Mike

Well, I'm hoping for the Cubs because I live in Chicago - it's fun to experience the local pride, even if it's totally bangwagon jumping at it's best.

And think of the tension if Cubs/Sox meet in the World Series? Then you KNOW that one of the futility streaks will be over, but for which team? Sounds like a recipe for a wonderfully dramatic series to me.

We have a saying back in Wales when it comes to rugby - 'I support Wales and whoever's playing against England'.

I'm pretty much like that here with the Yankees. So I'm pulling for the Sox, they're not making it particularly easy though.

Against the Yankees and since three of my four favs for the CS are gone, the only combination left for WS is Cubs vs Sox, which sounds Ok in strictly baseball sense...

The media coverage if [the Red Sox or Cubs] wins will be incredibly irritating.

Bingo.

Dave Till is right, too, though: it would be nice for the Yankees to miss the playoffs. Of course two years ago I would have actually been rooting for the Yankees, not merely rooting against the Red Sox.

But, Dave, as I've said all along -- and as Jonny German notes -- the Red Sox are not exactly helping things in terms of competetive balance. And, like Jonny, but only more so, I don't buy the whole "sabermetric" approach the Sox took in building their team. I recommend this approach to anyone: get Nomar, Manny, and Pedro. That's a nice trio to build upon, and when you throw in holdovers like Nixon, Lowe, Varitek, Wakefield, Damon, et al, Theo Epstein had a lot to work with -- in addition to having very nearly the same kind of cash flow as the Yankees. J.P.'s job is much more problematic, and I get a bit tired of the "Theo as genius" gibber-gabber, as I have grown weary of the "Beane is God" mumbo-jumbo.

The Sox made decisions that brought in Bill Mueller (perhaps the quintessential Bill James type player), Todd Walker (good hitter for a 2B, not that good a fielder), Kevin Millar, Jeremy Giambi and David Ortiz (hitters with limited defensive usefulness).

All of these guys are good hitters and not so good defensively. Another GM, with similar financial resources might have brought in more pitching or better defensive players with lesser bats.

Like anything in baseball, there is risk and reward. The Sox starting pitching is still a little thin, and the defense isn't very good. I don't think Theo is a genius, but a lot of other GMs would have done things a lot differently.

I'm having a hard time following these playoffs because I really, truly do not want any of these teams to win the WS. The Yankees and Red Sox are easy (Craig could not have expressed my feelings any better than saying "a pox on both your houses" - I just hate both teams). The Cubs are a little harder because they have somehow become "America's darlings". I just am philosophically opposed to Baker's management style and abuse of pitchers and would hate to see it all "vindicated" with a world series victory. As for Florida, well all you need to say is Jeff Loria.

So with all of that, I'm watching because the baseball has been exciting (if not always that well played) and well, I'm rooting for individuals. I want Pedro to win a WS and there are a number of Marlins that I can't help but rooting for (Pudge-because he's been a force of nature this post season; Willis-because he appears to love the game the way I think I would if I got to play baseball for a living; Pavano-how can you not root for a guy with that much injury history?). It ain't much but that's what I'm left with.

I think McKeon batting Pudge third should be ample proof of the good that can happen when your best hitter is in the three hole. It seemed like all through the divisional and now the league series, Pudge always came up with guys on base, in critical situations. Three hole = good!

Am I the only one *not* pulling for that? I think the fact that these teams *never* win is one of the most enduring traditions in baseball. The media coverage if one of these teams will be incredibly irritating.

Yeah, but much more so if it's the Red Sox. I don't mind the Cubs winning it all, at least not too much.

I just want whoever wins this series to be soundly beaten by the NL representative.

Robert, Mueller was not signed to start; he was picked up to back up Hillenbrand and to be a defensive replacement for Shea and, presumably, for Walker -- if not eventually to take Walker's job at second. Two moderately priced veterans to battle for one position is something many teams cannot afford. And at any rate, if Epstein or James projected Mueller to win a batting title and hit like he did this year, then they simply aren't human.

As for Ortiz/Millar/Giambi, they were brought in to fill two positions -- 1B/DH -- and only Giambi was acquired cheaply (traded for middle relief scrub Josh Hancock). As I said, there are very few teams who can afford to spend $1 million on a player, like Ortiz, in the hopes he'll develop, let alone are able to get three guys to fill two positions. Millar was simply not cheap: he cost $3.5 million in salary alone, plus the money the Sox paid for his rights. Now, granted, there are always going to be the Pittsburghs who choose Randall Simon over David Ortiz, but their ranks are thin, and at any rate they only brought in one Randall Simon, not two, to play first base, and there was no competition. (Of course the Pirates next best hitter other than Brian Giles, at the time, was Craig Wilson, who was cheap and could out-hit Simon.)

Depth is a luxury. The Red Sox have it; the Jays and A's do not -- at least not yet in the Jays case.

Gitz,

1 million? How much did the Jays spend on Cat, Sturtze and Bordick? Eveyone can afford to spend a million on someone like David Ortiz. A lot of teams will look at him as a completely useless defensive player and pass. There was a clear design to try to create an OBP monster in Boston this year, defence be damned. That's really all I'm trying to say. Lot's of teams have no plan at all, but Boston did and it was more "Jamesian" than any other. I'm not saying that this is obviously the right approach; it has it's drawbacks.

I just can't believe that the Sox brass planned on keeping Hillenbrand all year after they got Mueller - Shea was just not their kind of player. Mueller had a solid career OBP coming into this year.

I would say the Athletics have just as much depth as the Red Sox. Who's the backup infielder - Damian Jackson! The bullpen depth the A's had at the beginning of the year far outweighed what the Red Sox had. The Sox addressed this problem during the year - they must have brought in about 12 guys over the course of the season - and seem to finally have found a cure.

To back up Robert, JP spent 2.2 million for Frank the Cat's bat, and everyone feels that this was a wise move. Ortiz and Mueller were brilliant acquisitions.

http://economics.about.com
You also have to consider the market. The Red Sox needed 1B/DH types, which just happened to be the most inexpensive thing on the market last year (look how little Fullmer signed for). Unfortunately the Jays were looking for outfielders, a backup shortstop, and pitching, all of which was more expensive.

Ortiz and Mueller were brilliant acquisitions.

Bill Mueller career OPS before 2003: .769
Bill Mueller 2003 OPS: .938

David Ortiz career OPS before 2003: .809
David Ortiz 2003 OPS: .961

Astute? Yes. Lucky? Yes. Brilliant? No.

if you don't hate the Yanks, you're not a baseball fan

Not sure what that makes me, Jonny. If you don't appreciate that 1998 club, it's an odd sort of fandom, and if you're old enough (like a select few of us) to remember 1961, that was another incredible team. I didn't much like the personalities during the Billy Martin/Reggie Jackson years, but by golly, they won.

Though I understand the Yankees-as-villains perception, I like Steinbrenner -- despite his quirks. If the only way you know George is from his occasional outbursts and Seinfeld, you're missing a lot. Almost alone among his colleagues, he has the balls to stand up to BeelzeBud. I also think the very smart Brian Cashman is a terrific guy who deserves his success, along with more credit than he usually receives. Joe Torre does a fantastic job in circumstances that most of us can't even imagine. The empire isn't all that evil.

My rooting for the Red Sox, which first occurred in 1967, began anew before this season but was pretty subdued until the day they clinched the wild card, as I didn't want to jinx them. It's not anti-New York in any way; it's a gut thing -- I just prefer Nomar to Derek, Pedro to Roger, Mueller to Boone, and so on. I admit that Manny isn't exactly lovable, and wish that Trot Nixon would shut up about Jesus (who I imagine would be non-partisan) swinging the bat, but how often do you like everyone on a team? Even the delightful 2003 Jays included a few pitchers who shall remain nameless but made themselves difficult to admire.

The only move Epstein made this year that I disagreed with was adding Giambi; Theo should have looked beyond his OPS to recognize a pathetic waste of talent. That's not to say everything worked out perfectly, but he's run his team almost exactly the way I would, so I think he's brilliant. The change from those horrible Duquette years, where the entire organization was infested with paranoia, has been remarkable. From my perspective, it's really very similar to how J.P. has rebuilt from the Ashes. What's not to like?

I just want whoever wins this series to be soundly beaten by the NL representative.

Sorry, Craig. The NL has more parity, but the AL has the best (and worst) teams, and the East has already proved itself the strongest division in baseball, with half of the final four. Instead of hating Boston or the Yankees, I have enormous respect for two extremely tough opponents. I'd feel great if a team from the Jays' neighbourhood wins the World Serious. Realignment is a nice fantasy -- Toronto might have won the Central -- but instead of seeing 38 of the most exciting games of the year, it would be a shame to settle for a mere dozen or so. When the Jays finally catch one or both rivals, we'll know they have beaten the best. It wouldn't break my heart to see the Cubs win, but I think the ALCS is the real championship. No matter what the outcome is Saturday, Clemens against Martinez in Fenway will be a fall classic.

Even professional grump Dave Perkins, between swipes at Beane and Ricciardi, admitted today in the Star that this is the best postseason ever.

Even before the first pitch of whatever mayhem is certain to define the Yankees-Red Sox series, the past eight days had produced the most compelling and magnificent, good and bad, post-season baseball this old fan has yet seen.

Perkins also says, "Each night the show seems to get better," and I'm inclined to agree. I hope the Red Sox face the Cubs just so we can see the most productive lineup ever battle Wood and Prior. That will be quite a show.

Coach: I agree about the Yankees. If I'm cheering against them - and I am - it's only because I've seen them win enough recently and don't need to see it again. I was cheering for them in the mid-'90s, when it had been a while for them.

If you don't appreciate that 1998 club, it's an odd sort of fandom

Possibly the greatest team of all time. They were awesome, literally.

Mueller's career OBP prior to 2003 was .370 - how many third basemen do you know who can approach that? Mueller, because of recent injury-plagued seasons, was undervalued by the market. He's twice the player Hillenbrand is or ever will be.

The only move Epstein made this year that I disagreed with was adding Giambi

Coach, I disagree.

In hindsight, sure, Giambi didn't work out. But I believe the 1B/DH strategy heading into the season was the fairly reliable and healthy Millar plus two left-handed crap shoots (WRT health and production), Ortiz and Giambi, with the hope that at least one would pan out. Each was insurance for the other.

Ortiz blossomed, Giambi flopped. It could have gone the other way around.

Robert,

You can't seriously believe the Bo Sox thought Mueller would be this good. Face it, they got lucky with him -- at least on offense. He's a very good fielder, something in slim supply on the Red Sox. I do give Boston credit for signing Ortiz. Good move. I just don't know how we can prove that Boston was out to "put an OBP machine" out there this season, when the team that was already there was an awfully good offensive team long before Ortiz, Giambi, Mueller, and Walker.

As for Ortiz vs. Giambi, Coach is right in this case. Giambi has palpable skills as a hitter, but he's the hitter's equivalent of the pitcher who has great stuff but can't get anybody out. The talent is there (though in Giambi's case I believe his best skill is a good eye; when he actually swings, he's got too many holes), but, alas, the brain is not. Jays fans better hope and pray that Little G. doesn't make his way north when the Sox non-tender him next year ...

Giambi has palpable skills as a hitter, but he's the hitter's equivalent of the pitcher who has great stuff but can't get anybody out.

Except that in 2001 and 2002, at ages 26 and 27, his numbers were 391/450 and 414/505. He may be a pot-smoking, non-sliding dufus, but for two years the man did hit. I'm not sure an immediate collapse was foreseeable.

Little G hasn't stayed healthy, and has given no indication that he'll take care of himself enough to stay healthy.

He's a loser. Beane knew he was a loser -- the type of player that underachieves, and contributes to the underachievement of those around him. Is he even in the dugout for the playoffs?

No, my point isn't that the Sox expected Mueller to hit this well. What I am saying is that he is exactly the type of supporting cast player you need if you want to build a great offence. .370 OBP in some tough parks for hitters.

If every player the Sox acquiredd was a guy who got on base and hit well in general, I don't know how we can AVOID concluding that there was a plan to build a great offence. What else would you do if you wanted to build a great offence?

Fair enough, Robert. But you HAVE to admit, there was ALREADY a great offense there. Adding Mueller to the mix, even if he performed at his career norms, would not have changed it much. That was really the point I was trying to make. However, clearly you are right: the Sox were more interested in adding hitters, not complete baseball players.

What I don't get is how people can still try to defend Jeremy Giambi, to continue to claim that he's ever going to reach whatever potential he had. Mike D. is now my favorite member of Da Box. He's exactly right: Jeremy is a loser.

Boy, sometimes it is difficult. Bill Mueller's road stats in 2000-2002: .290/.365/.469; Bill Mueller's road stats in 2003: .309/.373/.530. A competent defensive third baseman who hits .290/.365/.469 in a neutral ballpark is a very valuable player. To get him for $2.1 million is a steal. The acquisition was not brilliant because he outperformed his career norms this year, but because his career norms are so good.

To put it another way, Bill Mueller's road stats 2000-2002 are about equivalent to Eric Hinske's total stats (with half his starts at Skydome)in 2002 when he won the ROY award. Bill Mueller plays much better defense than Eric Hinske.

Most people did not see Bill Mueller as a much better player than Eric Hinske entering 2003, but the Sox did and they were right.

Gitz' comment that the Sox were not interested in acquiring "whole ballplayers" is a little over the top. It is true certainly of Todd Walker, but the rest of the acquisitions fitted neatly with the Sox' needs.

Let's also note that overall batters hit worse in road parks than in home parks. So, Mueller's road stats are not quite "neutral" in that sense.

Just when I was starting to think I should upgrade my assesment from "astute aquisition" to "smart acquisition"...

Most people did not see Bill Mueller as a much better player than Eric Hinske entering 2003, but the Sox did and they were right.

When did Theo state that? I can't see why he would have, seeing as he didn't have the option of signing Hinske to the contract he signed Mueller to. You're giving the Sox credit for things that you're assuming based on absolutely nothing. I'm guessing that he would have chosen Hinske over Mueller for the same contract, had that option been available to him. Is my guess a reasonable argument that Theo was just lucky that he signed Mueller? I sure hope not.

Let's also note that overall batters hit worse in road parks than in home parks. So, Mueller's road stats are not quite "neutral" in that sense.

I think I'll go run a spreadsheet to downgrade Mueller's 2000-2002 home park stats. But I'm not quite sure how to account for the fact that if his home park is a pitcher's park, his road parks must have been hitter's parks.

Jonny,

Event park factors are the answer my friend. I currently have an opus in my HTML editor dealing with event park factors. When I've figured out how to clean up the text, I'll post it.

Boy, sometimes it is difficult. Bill Mueller's road stats in 2000-2002: .290/.365/.469

Uh, yeah, about those numbers. I didn't have access to ESPN earlier, but now that I do I see where you got those numbers, and I also see that they're wrong. It may say "THREE YEAR (2000-2002)", but closer inspection reveals it's actually "THREE YEAR (2001-2003)". Bill's actual 2000-2002 road stats: .283/.370/.426.

I currently have an opus in my HTML editor dealing with event park factors. When I've figured out how to clean up the text, I'll post it.

I'm interested to see that, Robert. I was about to say, I'm also not sure how it makes sense to just ignore the fact that he went .260/.343/.375 at home from 2000 to 2002 as if he didn't actually post those numbers. Park-adjusting makes a lot of sense.