Update: Instant Replay

The baseball general managers voted 25-5 today in favor of using instant replays for "boundary calls" -- determining whether a potential home run is fair or foul, determining whether a home run ball hit a portion of the outfield fence and determining whether a fan interfered with a potential home run hit.

It's now up to commissioner Bud Selig to approve the managers' recommendation. If he approves (and he may very well not approve), then the player and umpire unions would also have to approve the rule change. Club owners would also potentially have a say.

And what does the sports journalism community think of all this? Nothing. None of my favorite sports publications had an opinion piece on the issue. There were articles from a week or two ago, but nothing today.

The managers' vote is not earth-shattering news. Everyone was expecting this outcome. But still, I find it intriguing that the instant replays would be limited to home run calls. Are those the only calls worth getting right? What about close plays at the plate? Or strike three calls when the bases are loaded? Once you say that plays involving home runs are worthy of being reviewed, it becomes a slippery slope, because every play truly matters in some way.

But, nope, nobody wanted to talk about it. Either the baseball writers are off taking a little vacation, or sports section editors decided that this is minor news. The World Series did just end, mind you. Now it's football, football, football.

And so this blog experiment of ours must come to an end. See you next season.

Torre Welcomed to LA

Joe Torre took the stage at center-field at Dodger Stadium for his introduction as manager of the Los Angeles Dodgers. Torre signed a 3-year, $13 million contract to replace Grady Little who quit last week after two seasons.

Torre will bring with him Don Mattingly and Larry Bowa as additions to his coaching staff, both of whom coached under him in New York. Torre expressed his (and his team's) excitement at coming to LA in an article by the Los Angeles Times.

"When I think of the Dodgers I think of efficiency, I think of pride, I think of measuring stick," Torre said. "You always measured yourself by the Dodgers because they did everything right. They had a stature that you always looked up to."

Torre said it was an honor to move from one prestigious organization to another and he has great plans for the Dodgers, who haven't won a World Series since 1988. "The goals as far as I'm concerned — you go out there and you play hard and you play smart and you hope to get a good result," he added. "I can talk about it all day long. We're going to have to prove it out here." (FoxSports.com article)

ESPN's Page 2 columnist Eric Neel said that although Torre may not make vast improvements in the 2008 season, he brings a spark to the Dodger franchise:

"What matters here and now is that Joe Torre is the freakin' manager of the Los Angeles Dodgers. The same Joe Torre who led the Yankees to 12 straight playoff appearances and won four World Series rings, the same Joe Torre who just got up out of Letterman's chair. He's the new headman in charge.

There's no analytic to assess the impact of this. It isn't a move measured in runs or even wins. It's an emotional event. It's a bolt, a shot of adrenaline, to a flatlined franchise."

Neel explains that LA sports fans are up for grabs at the moment and it's up for the Dodgers to grab them. "Once upon a time the Dodgers owned Los Angeles. Then it was the Lakers. And then it was SC. And now, in these strange, tumultuous, entertaining days, everybody's into the pool, everybody's kung fu fighting for our attention and wallets."

Sports fans have the opportunity to watch a new era of the Dodgers unfold as Torre takes over management. Will they make a vast improvement in their next season or will it take a while for things to click or will virtually nothing change? We will have to wait and see.

Be Wary of Barry

Apparently, Alex Rodriguez isn't the only baseball player who needs a lesson in common sense. A week after A-Rod stole the stage from the World Series, Barry Bonds is complaining that he has been unfairly targeted in baseball's crackdown on steroids. (Or, as an ESPN.com headline puts it, "unfairly targed"...whatever that means.)

A-Rod has already been criticized, on this blog and just about everywhere else, for his lapse in judgement. Bonds' latest episode of pissing and moaning, however, has gone under the radar. Ironically, this is because Barry has overshadowed himself. His vow to boycott the Hall of Fame if it accepts his asterisk-marred 756th home run ball may be the biggest Bonds story of the weekend, but it's not the only one.

In an interview with MSNBC on Friday, Bonds said he "defintely" believes he has been singled out for baseball's problems with performance-enhancing drugs. Rather than spinning this off as a negative, Bonds might want to explain how this makes sense. It's a testament to his success. By smashing his way to the top of baseball's record books, Bonds has put himself in the spotlight. And when athletes accomplish great things, people pay attention to them. They target them, if you will. That's life, and that's fair.

Bonds' decision to take a negative outlook makes it tough to trust another point the free agent slugger tried to make in the same interview:

"I don't bring baggage to a team," he said. "I've never brought any baggage to a team. I've brought my baseball bag, but I don't bring any baggage. I go on the field and I play."

This is where the past overwhelmingly contradicts Bonds' attempt at putting a positive spin on himself. Barry sits on the bench when he feels like it. He also speaks his mind whenever he feels like it. Consider this along with the steroid controversy, and that's baggage alright.

As he has demonstrated a nauseating number of times, Bonds can say whatever he wants. While he belongs in the Hall of Fame for his accomplishments--even those before the steriods controversy--he's making it tough on PR personnel of teams seeking to sign him. Maybe that's unfair.

The Torre Torpedo

On Thursday, the Los Angeles Dodgers hired former Yankees manager Joe Torre as their new skipper. Torre, who is the winningest manager in postseason history, accepted a three-year, $13 million contract. Now he will try to take the Dodgers to a place they haven't been to since 1988 -- the World Series.

So, yay or nay? ESPN's Gene Wojciechowski thinks Torre isn't nearly enough:

Either Torre has lost his mind, or McCourt and wife Jamie, who doubles as vice-chairman and team president, have actually decided to quit ripping off Dodgers fans and put together a team capable of winning something other than the annual National League attendance figures. I vote for Torre and lost his mind.

Torre is supposed to reverse the inertia, the irrelevancy. It isn't going to happen. Torre is indeed a future Hall of Famer, but before he came to the Yankees he had one first-place finish: 1982, with the Atlanta Braves.

The Dodgers aren't going to win a World Series in 2008. At least, they're not going to win it because Torre replaced Little.

ESPN's J.A. Adande agrees with much of what Wojciechowski said:

Torre's time in Dodger Blue will never come close to matching his accomplishments in pinstripes.

The Dodgers aren't hurting for attention. Their attendance of 3.8 million this year trailed only the Yankees. They just don't dominate the discussion any more, don't get the city's heart racing or keep Dodger flags fluttering from cars on the Santa Monica Freeway.

And no manager, Joe Torre included, is good enough to transform the Dodgers into a championship team.

However, this isn't to say Adande thinks Torre won't be a competent manager:

What will help is Torre's ability to handle the clubhouse to prevent the rift between vets and young guys that tore apart the Dodgers under Grady Little down the stretch this year.

So, no, Torre isn't a bad hire. It just seems a little extravagant for a team that wasn't supposed to be shopping in this neighborhood.

CBS Sports' Scott Miller also thinks Angelenos shouldn't be too excited about the arrival of Torre:

No question, the Dodgers' hiring of Torre is a public relations smash for an owner, Frank McCourt, who has spent most of his time in L.A. stepping on his own ... uh, toes. But for those star-loving types living in a city dominated by Hollywood, while there surely is substance to go with Torre's style, his presence alone isn't going to earn a World Series trophy.

Hiring Torre was a wise decision. Next year will be the Dodgers' 50th season in L.A., and Torre's arrival gives the L.A. fans a feeling of renewal -- a feeling that maybe this Dodgers club will compete once again after nearly two decades of silence. Torre won't single-handily solve the Dodgers' talent problems, but he will excel at smoothing out player altercations and a relatively low club morale.

And more than anything else, he's a PR hire. He knows how to handle the media. He knows how to appear wise and seasoned in all situations (most likely because he is both of those things). Old-age wisdom never hurt anybody in La La Land.

A Ball With an Asterisk?

Former San Francisco Giant Barry Bonds has announced that if his record-setting 756th home run ball goes into the Hall of Fame with an asterisk on it, he will never set foot in the Hall of Fame, even if he is inducted.

In an interview with TV Broadcaster Jim Gray, Bonds denounced the decision to send his ball to the Hall of Fame, saying it taints his record. According to a release by MSNBC, Bonds said, "I don't think you can put an asterisk in the game of baseball and I don't think that the Hall of Fame can accept an asterisk in their Hall of Fame. You can't, you cannot give people the freedom, the right to alter history, you can't do it. There's no such thing as an asterisk in baseball."

Bonds' record-breaking ball was caught by 21-year-old Matt Murphy of New York, who decided to sell the ball because he couldn't afford to pay the taxes required to keep it. According to an article in the San Francisco Chronicle, "Bonds' 756th home run ball was purchased in an auction by Marc Ecko, a fashion designer. Ecko held an online vote on whether he should send the ball to Cooperstown as is, send it with an asterisk (to acknowledge the public suspicion that Bonds used steroids) or send it into outer space in a rocket. The asterisk option won."

According to an article by the Associated Press on FoxSports.com, the Hall of Fame will welcome the ball. "Hall president Dale Petroskey has said accepting the ball doesn't mean the museum endorses the viewpoint that Bonds used illegal substances. He said the museum would be 'delighted' to have the ball. 'It's a historic piece of baseball history,' Petroskey said in September."

A video on ESPN.com from "1st and 10" acknowledges that many agree with Bonds' sentiments. A commentator on the show says she agrees with Bonds 100 percent that the Hall of Fame should have a record-setting ball with an asterisk on it, especially because Bonds has not been proven to have taken steroids.

Bonds has said he will completely boycott Cooperstown and the Hall of Fame if the ball goes to rest there, even if that means skipping his induction ceremony. Since Bonds' induction into the hall is years away, it remains to be seen how this will all play out. For now, the story turns to his steroids use and whether or not he knowingly took performance-enhancing drugs.

Instant Replay

There are rumors that next week a majority of baseball's general managers will recommend to MLB that umpires should be able to start using instant replay.

This discussion was sparked by the Cleveland Indians GM, Mark Shapiro, who has been widely reported as saying: "If we could do it efficiently and fast — and it's a call we know we can get right — then how can we not?" (USA Today).

Commissioner Bud Selig's response on the issue: "I'm asking the general managers to look at the subject and I'll ask the owners, but I don't like it. The best I could ever be convinced would be to use it in a limited form — but I wouldn't want to tell you today I'd even do that" (USA Today).

So, next week, we'll officially know where the GMs stand, and then it'll be up to Selig to enforce their recommendation or not.

The press seems to be evenly split on the topic. The Seattle Times' Steve Kelley feels that adding instant replay would slow baseball down to an unbearable pace:

Baseball doesn't need instant replay. Disputes are part of the fabric of the game. Do we want electronics to erase the possibility of a Lou Piniella eruption? Or rob us of yet another Bobby Cox ejection?

Replay might sound like a good idea, but it doesn't fit the pace or the fabric of the game. The split-finger, not the split screen, is high-tech enough for baseball. The umpire's judgment, good or bad, is part of the beauty of the game.

What's next, a robot that can call balls and strikes?

Baseball is different from football, basketball, ice hockey and tennis, which use the latest technology to get the calls right. It already has more built-in stops than those other sports. The game doesn't need more interruptions.

The New York Sun's Tim Marchman agrees:

The main question in implementing a system would be in deciding when it would be used and who would decide that it was needed. This involves limiting its use. Unfortunately there are no practical ways to do so.

Marchman goes on to list the inherent limitations of an instant replay system. What innings would it be used? How many times can a manager challenge a call? Will umpires be willing to admit their own mistakes, or will they never allow calls to be challenged because they wouldn't want to admit their errors? And so forth...

On the other side of the fence, ESPN's Gene Wojciechowski is all for instant replay:

How many Don Denkinger/Game 6 moments of the 1985 World Series do we have to endure before Selig and the owners give instant replay a chance?

The umpires wouldn't resist the move. At least, the smart ones wouldn't. Why would you resist technology that can help you do your job better? After all, the NFL uses it. College football uses it. The NBA uses it. NASCAR uses it. Pro tennis uses it.

MLB, its owners, the baseball media, the old-timers shouldn't resist. This isn't about preserving history. This is about improving the accuracy and the integrity of the game.

And FOX Sports' Kevin Hench:

Embracing "the human element" means endorsing mistakes. Game-changing, series-changing, history-changing mistakes. It means saying you're happy that the Royals won the 1985 World Series instead of the Cardinals thanks largely to the (easily reviewable and reversible) mistake of Don Denkinger. It means you like the fact that we all know Jeffrey Maier's name because Richie Garcia froze with the game on the line. It means you don't want justice to prevail. It means you're happy with the wrong team winning the World Series because of a mistake by a human being that could be corrected.

Despite the old-school crowd defending the umps and their truly unacceptable mistake rate on close calls, I'll let you in on a dirty little not-so-secret: the state of umpiring in Major League Baseball, when subjected to the jeweler's loupe of instant replay, is not so good. Which is why baseball desperately needs instant replay.

Yes, baseball is full of human errors (both by the players and by the umpires). But that's the beauty of it. In an age where it seems like every football play is inspected with a microscope, baseball is a sport where people have to "go with their gut."

I don't really believe in the idea that games are lost on bad calls. Perhaps if it's one of the final plays of the game, but often that blown call is just one of the millions of decisions that affect the outcome of a game. Sure, your team could think, "If only we had that call go our way, we would have won." But how are you to know exactly what would have happened if that umpire's call went your way? Perhaps its effect would have been zilch. Who knows? It's fun to speculate. It's fun to complain about the umpires. It's fun to know that sometimes you'll get a lucky break and sometimes you'll be left in disbelief.

And besides, instant replays just slow everything down. One of my gripes with football is that its instant replays, its timeouts, its TV commercials, etc., extend what should normally be a two-hour game into a three or sometimes four-hour marathon. It's especially painful for the people at the game. They paid good money for their seats, and now they have to sit around for five minutes as absolutely nothing happens. It ruins the momentum of the game.

Baseball is a leisurely paced game to begin with. I like it that way. But adding replays would finally tempt me to concur with what many of my friends have already been saying about the sport for years: "Baseball can sure be boring sometimes."

X-Rod

Take your pick.

Angels? Dodgers? Red Sox?

Keep guessing.

Tigers? Cubs? Giants?

Who knows.

When it comes to the 2008 hometown of baseball's best player, there only appears to be one certainty: it won't be New York. But not so fast.

After Alex Rodriguez slapped us all in the face by announcing his decision to opt out of his contract with the Yankees during game four of the World Series, Mets third baseman David Wright says he's willing move to second base--were New York's NL team to acquire A-Rod. Still, that doesn't mean the Mets have anything locked up. It's merely a reason to add the Mets to the laundry list of teams drooling over baseball's biggest free agent ever. All we know is that he won't be a Yankee. Beyond that, good luck guessing. As Bill Shaikin of the Los Angeles Times put it yesterday:

"[O]n the first day of the A-Rod shopping season, an executive with one American League team interested in signing him let out a sigh, a herald of the off-season to come, full of juicy rumors and outrageous dollars and mystery teams.

"'The circus has begun,' the executive said Monday."

After hitting 54 home runs, driving in 156, and scoring an additional 143...just think about those numbers for a second...Alex Rodriguez and super-agent Scott Boras are in line to command the most lucrative contract in baseball history, and for good reason. He's a lock to receive his third MVP award for his 2007 performance. In search of a long-term contract, Alex Rodriguez will likely break Barry Bonds' tainted home run record with the next team that signs him. Plus, at 32 years old, he shows no signs of slowing down. Rodriguez has played in at least 148 games each of the past 8 seasons, notching a full 162 games three times, in addition to 161 games with Texas in 2003. Bottom line: He will produce for whomever he plays--the key word being whomever.

Whatever may happen, expect irony. Angels owner Arte Moreno has said he couldn't imagine paying any one player more than $20 million per year, but he would have to pay A-Rod much more. And with a thinning starting rotation, the Angels might need to invest elsewhere. But don't write him off just yet, Anaheim. According to today's article by the Times' Mike DiGiovanna,

"(A) factor improving the Angels' chances of signing Rodriguez: They could clear $18 million after 2008 by letting Anderson and Cabrera go and free up $4.75 million by trading Chone Figgins. An increase in ticket prices should also boost revenue."

The Dodgers seem to have bigger things to worry about, according to Shaikin:

"The Dodgers are a mess, with ownership flirting with replacements for a manager while they already have one. In the final week of the season, General Manager Ned Colletti said he would not talk about Rodriguez until he opted out. But Colletti did not return calls Monday and has not returned calls since the end of the season, so you wonder if ownership might be flirting with replacements for him too."

The Red Sox? 'Nuff said.

Shaikin presents perhaps the most interesting idea of all:

"How about the Florida Marlins, Rodriguez's hometown team? They could trade third baseman Miguel Cabrera for three top players, build around A-Rod and shortstop Hanley Ramirez and contend in the National League East.

"So A-Rod might cost $30 million a year. The Marlins receive about $30 million a year in revenue sharing. Imagine that, Hank Steinbrenner: You could be paying Rodriguez to play for the Marlins."

Whatever happens, don't rush to stick a label A-Rod's next hometown. Teams can't even negotiate financial terms until Nov. 13. Until then, the man without a home (or, the man with a home everywhere beyond the Bronx) might as well be called X-Rod.

Managers in the News

The Yankees are yet again commandeering the headlines of baseball news today, as the New York franchise announced they have hired a new manager: Joe Girardi.

Almost two weeks ago, Joe Torre turned down the Yankee's offer to remain with the team for a thirteenth year. Torre explained that it was time to move on from New York. In ESPN's article, he "didn't blast his former employer but provided a window into how he felt: as though he no longer was wanted."

But on to the new Joe. ESPN's Keith Law thinks Girardi is the right man for the job. "By turning the club over to a much younger manager in Joe Girardi and giving him a three-year deal, the Yankees have created a situation in which the manager's incentives more closely reflect the long-term goals of the club, which revolve around young pitchers, " he writes. Read the rest of the article here.

According to Fox Sports, "Girardi's deal is worth about $7.8 million, a person familiar with the agreement said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the Yankees didn't announce the details. It includes bonuses based on how far the team advances in the postseason."

When asked how he felt about replacing the legendary Joe Torre, Girardi replied that he didn't think he was there to replace anyone:

"I don't think you can ever replace a figure because that figure is unique in his own way. What I'm going to do is I'm going to be myself," Girardi said. "And yes, are there expectations on me and, you know, the coaching staff and the players? Absolutely. The same expectations that were on Joe Torre when he came in in 1996.

"I can't be Joe Torre because I'm made up different," Girardi said. "You know, I'm a different character, so I don't really necessarily worry about replacing someone or how I'm going to replace someone. I'm more worried about just being myself and getting the most out of the guys."

But where will Torre go? There are lots of rumors floating around, but the most popular seems to be that he is headed to the Los Angeles Dodgers. Although this has not been confirmed, it seems highly likely that LA is where he will end up, especially with today's announcement of the resignation of current Dodger's manager Grady Little.

ESPN reports that Little's decision to resign had been on his mind since the end of the season. The article also reports that Dodger's general manager Ned Colletti wanted Little to return for another season.

So now that Little is gone, will Torre bring his expertise to Dodger Stadium? That all remains to be seen...

Damn Yankees

It should've been about Boston--baseball's new dynasty, after 86 years of shame. It even could've been about the Rockies and their incredible run, albeit four games short. But it shouldn't have been about the Yankees--not after they were ousted in the first round for the third year in a row. Not after Colorado went on a run for the record books. Not after their rivals swept the Rockies with more ease than a kid sweeps his garage on a Saturday morning to win their second title in four years after coming up empty for so long.

But as George Steinbrenner and strategy would have it, this postseason was overshadowed by a team that collapsed before a leaf could say, "I'm falling!" To New York's credit, this October was more bland than the playoffs should ever be. Even Jason Varitek and Jonathan Papelbon sounded like sleepwalking zombies during their post-game interviews with Fox's Chris Myers--this just after winning the World Series! Nevertheless, by blatantly stirring up enough drama to spook away even its truest fans before Halloween, the Yankees gave Boston, and baseball in general, a slap in the face.

First, it was the Joe Torre saga. Just hours before the Red Sox and Indians began game 5 of the ALCS (Cleveland holding a commanding 3-1 series lead--remember that?) on October 18, SI.com reported that Joe Torre rejected the Yankees' contract offer and would not return as their manager. One reporter even had the audacity to ask Boston manager Terry Francona for his take on the Torre situation in the wake of game 5. This as Boston is up against a wall, and Manny doesn't care, leaving Francona with more than enough to worry about for his own ballclub--Yankees be damned.

Some people might not remember how dominant the Red Sox were in overcoming the 3-1 deficit to advance to the Fall Classic. How did Cleveland fall apart so quickly? How did Boston catch fire? Wait...who cares? The Yankees were interviewing Don Mattingly, Joe Girardi and Tony Pena! It's a good thing Boston swept Colorado before the Bronx Bombers-no-more could name their next manager, even if it would violate baseball code by announcing a transaction during the World Series.

But wait, there's more. When the Yankees and Red Sox are involved, there's always more. Sunday, it came in the form of Alex Rodriguez. The AL MVP-to-be, without whom the Yankees never would have made the playoffs, just happened to opt out of his contract with New York on the day everyone knew belonged to Boston. I happened to check out ESPNews between innings during game 4. I expected the headline ESPN always places in the bottom-right corner to say something about the game--perhaps a score. After all, it was the World Series. But instead, the headline tells me "Alex Rodriguez opts out of contract with NYY. " NYY? Why must I be told about NYY when the only two teams still playing are BOS and COL?!?

ESPN The Magaine's Buster Olney points out the ironic timing:

"The way this played out could not have been more apropos, because A-Rod needs to be bigger than the game; he needs to be more important than the Red Sox or the Rockies or any other team, or any other player. He is one of the greatest players in history at compiling statistics, the greatest ever at compiling wealth, and his next employer will have to buy into that. The World Series can't matter as much as A-Rod. "

This day belonged to Boston. Try as they might to steal the spotlight, the A-Rod and the Yankees will soon see what the rest of us already know: There's a new power in baseball. It remains in the AL East, but--like baseball's biggest star--no longer in New York.

Eds. note: A-Rod, sign with the Angels and you will be excused for stealing the Sox' thunder.

Sox Sweep

The World Series had barely begun, and now it's over (much to the disappointment of FOX, who would have surely preferred a few more games). The Red Sox were unstoppable. Their team is too well-rounded from top to bottom, and it's a sad statement about the National League that the Rockies were the best the league could bring to the table.

There was nothing particularly interesting about this World Series. It didn't hold historic significance like the Red Sox's 2004 season. The Rockies' magical late-season surge (21-1 during their last 22 games before playing the Red Sox) ended with a whimper. The series itself was a dud in terms of excitement and intrigue, for the Red Sox dominated early and never let up.

And so, it's interesting to see other news sources desperately attempt to dig up something interesting about the series to mention.

Actually, ESPN's Jim Caple didn't try at all. He called it as he saw it, saying that this was "the worst postseason in baseball history."

You know a postseason is bad when the most interesting moment is an invasion of insects.

This World Series has been particularly disappointing. It held such promise. Old against young. The tradition and history-bound Boston Red Sox with their powerful lineup, intriguing starters and Riverdancing closer against the upstart Colorado Rockies and their powerful lineup, solid bullpen and miraculous winning stretch. Cramped and historic Fenway Park versus enormous and new Coors Field. Minutemen versus cowboys. Sea level versus mile high. The Green Monster versus the humidor. Samuel Adams versus the microbrewery.

Oh, it was going to be good. All those passionate (i.e., obnoxious) Red Sox fans, plus a brand new set of fans experiencing the World Series for the very first time.

But what have we gotten? A 13-1 Game 1 blowout, a 2-1 Game 2 that despite its close score, never seemed in doubt after the fifth inning and then Saturday's 10-5 Game 3.

So much for the great expectations. As one father said to his son during Saturday's game, "Well, at least you're here to see it. Even if it is s---."

The Los Angeles Times' Bill Shaikin offered a more restrained assessment, but with a hint of disappointment:

This series was no accident, starting with the most lopsided Game 1 in World Series history. And the final game had little suspense, with the Red Sox taking the lead after five pitches.

As Seth Smith struck out, for the final out, Papelbon flung his glove at the sky. Then he rushed into the arms of catcher Jason Varitek and disappeared into a sea of teammates. Baseball's best team, and champions again.

Most writers are coming to the conclusion that the Red Sox are this decade's team, now becoming the first team this decade to win twice. With their significant payroll and impressive farm system, it appears the Boston team will not only be a major contender next year, but for many years to come.

The New York Times' Tyler Kepner says is simply:

They have gone from exorcism to coronation in record time. The Boston Red Sox, who fought ghosts for most of the last century, are the premier team of the new millennium.

Thus, Bostonians can celebrate tonight and look forward to future success. For all other baseball fans, thank goodness something else happened today -- something concerning this year's expected American League MVP. But it's not right to talk about that player tonight. This is Boston's night.

UPDATE: Game 3

It appears the Red Sox are having no trouble at all adjusting to the high altitude at Coors Field. In the third inning, they lead the Rockies 6-0. Follow the live action online at espn.com.

The Rockies Go Home

After two disappointing games for the Rockies on the east coast, they are heading home to Coors Field. The Rockies will have the home field advantage for tonight's game, as the World Series heads to Denver for the first time ever. But there might be something besides screaming Rockies fans standing in Boston's way: the altitude.

Coors Field is at an elevation of 5,280 feet, one mile above sea level. Up there the air is thinner and the balls will move faster, possibly giving the Rockies who know this field oh so well, an advantage. But will the difference in air pressure really affect the outcome of the game?

According to an article in the Boston Globe it will. "Baseball is about physics as much as physical coordination and conditioning," writes Colin Nickerson of the Globe staff. "And the atmospheric physics of mile-high Denver are markedly different from those of Boston-by-the-Sea."

Nickerson writes that while the thinner air makes for longer hits, it will also affect the pitchers' games - most noticeably the Red Sox pitchers' games. "'Breaking pitches will break less. Fastballs will pick up a little speed, but rise less . . . because they are moving through a thinner fluid,' or air," according to physicist Barry Zink.

But is all this about the thinner air and its effect on the game just an excuse for Red Sox players not looking forward to playing away from home? The Red Sox have only played one series at Coors Field, losing two of three games to the Rockies in 2004.

An article in the Denver Post says its not the balls the Red Sox should be worried about, its their endurance. In the thin air, players get winded faster and can become easily dehydrated. "The Red Sox told their players to drink, drink, drink—water, that is...'On the plane, all over the locker room, trainer's room: Just drink that water, stay hydrated,' rookie center fielder Jacoby Ellsbury said."

It's not that the Red Sox are going to be the only ones affected by these altitude conditions, but the Rockies are used to what the thinner air does to them and know how to adjust their game accordingly. It remains to be seen whether Boston can learn to do the same.

Hooligans 2, Rockies 0

If not for their jerseys, it would be take a while to guess whom Red Sox relievers work for.

They've got moves like you've never seen, but you probably won't catch them on "Dancing With the Stars" any time soon. They bang on their bullpen overhang with the fervor of fourth graders and can actually hold a decent beat. Their cheerleading prowess, however, pales in comparison to that of the Song Girls.

Everything comes into focus when they take that fire, apply it to baseball, and shove it down the Rockies' throats. So much for success serving as a byproduct of professionalism. Ah, yes, these are the Red Sox indeed.

In game two of the World Series, Boston's bullpen made its presence known well before starting pitcher Curt Schilling finished his work. Fox captured the Sox' antics by repeatedly cutting away to Boston's bullpen -- also known as the Black Pearl, for reasons to be seen shortly -- as early as the fourth inning. In his column on the Red Sox relievers, ESPN's Jerry Crasnick notes that Mike Timlin, the "Admiral" of the Black Pearl by virtue of his veteran status, went so far as to bring in a stuffed parrot to serve as the bullpen mascot.

Once called upon, however, it's strictly business for this seemingly untouchable bunch of relievers. Hideki Okajima and Jonathan Papelbon starred as usual on Thursday night, tossing 3 2/3 scoreless innings to preserve a 2-1 Red Sox victory and put the Rockies on the ropes. While Papelbon is known to dance and Okajima refuses to partake, Crasnick notes in his column that, "standing on a mound, they're both pretty darned good."

Red Sox relievers might be crazy, but they're undeniably dominant. Barring another magical run by the Rockies, Papelbon might soon top his electric stuff on the mound with an even more legendary version of the Riverdance he has performed during on-field celebrations:

When Winning Is Losing

With their 2-1 victory, the Boston Red Sox will head to Coors Field with a comfortable two-game lead over the Colorado Rockies. It's looking good for Manny and Company. Most likely, the Red Sox soon will win their seventh World Series, and their first since 2004's run, which famously broke their 86-year-old drought.

I recall watching "Reverse of the Curse of the Bambino," a HBO documentary that followed Red Sox fans during the 2004 season. Of course, the fans were elated about the World Series win, and the film included touching scenes such as one woman's visit to a family member's grave, where she left a World Series flag for the deceased Red Sox fan.

But, the documentary also hinted at something else -- that deep down, perhaps on some subconscious level, the Red Sox fans didn't want to win the 2004 World Series. After all, their lack of winning is what has defined Bostonians for over eight decades. They were losers and proud of it. Regardless of their Red Sox's continual losing, the fans loved their team the same way a parent loves his or her child no matter what.

Then the Red Sox won, and they became just another baseball team. Their fans became just another group of fans. I no longer see the desperation in the fans' eyes. I no longer see that look of utter despair and intense longing -- that look that says, "Please, please, please, Lord of Baseball, let our measly Red Sox team win just one World Series. Just one."

No, the Red Sox are now a powerhouse, and their fans expect to win. A few journalists have picked up on the Red Sox's sudden image reversal and how it effects the team's fans.

David O'Brien of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution talks to Sam Morton, a 19-year-old Red Sox fan:

Then I had to ask him: Was it better to be the luckless underdogs the Red Sox had been for most of a century, or the big-spending franchise going for a second World Series title in four years? After all, it’s hard to call the Yankees the Evil Empire when the Red Sox are spending more than anyone but the Yankees, and when the Red Sox are the team going for their second ring in four years while the Yankees haven’t won one in seven years.

“That’s a great question,” Morton said. “Growing up we were always underdogs, always in the Yankees’ shadow. Now we’ve got this powerhouse team. We really pounded the Rockies last night.”

He didn’t answer my question, but that was OK.

The kid's refusal to answer the question made me chuckle. No doubt, some older Red Sox fan will be telling Morton stories about how, back in the day, the Red Sox weren't an unstoppable force. "When I was your age, son..."

A Bates College professor is saying that the Red Sox's success could trigger an "identity crisis" for the team's fans:

Decades of not winning have defined Red Sox fans as virtuous, stubborn loyalists who stick with their team even when their allegiance goes unrewarded, Margaret Creighton said.

"It's really quite jarring for Red Sox fans now to have to deal with success, and it might be repeated," Creighton told the Sun Journal of Lewiston. "Once could be a fluke, getting rid of the curse ... But twice? This is very challenging and, to a degree, upsetting."

Success, she said, would bring accusations that Red Sox fans are arrogant, haughty, "that the Red Sox are the Yankees," Creighton said. She questions whether fans can handle a second championship "with a degree of humility."

And USA Today's Mike Lopresti chimes in:

Meet the new Yankees. As empires go, the Boston Red Sox have everything they need, except for maybe pinstripes.

They do not spend as much of the GNP as George Steinbrenner, but more than anybody else. Nearly three times more than the Colorado team they are about to play in the World Series.

Forget the idea of long sufferers, and the anguish passed from New England generation to generation. This is post-curse Boston.

But Halloween is just around the corner. There's still time left for Colorado to re-curse the Red Sox. It could be "The Curse of the Haunted Humidor."