The Little Team that Could

Before the World Series began, Rodger told me, "the Tigers are a team of young kids, they haven't lost a game in the postseason yet. All we have to do is win game 1." And it made sense. And it came true.

The entire theory behind that came true. The Cardinals weren't going to win this World Series, they had to capitalize on mistakes, and let the Tigers lose it. The storyline of the World Series to most of the rest of the nation will be the errors by the Tigers, as though the Cardinals simply weren't there. And I will be the first to agree, this team had less talent and less promise than the Cardinals had.

But, as wins so often in hockey, the Cardinals this year had grit. They had willpower, where the Tigers did not. They were a hotshot young team, they had everything going their way, and came in expecting to skate. And then, the gutty performances of the Cardinals started showing up.

The starting pitching was phenominal, nothing overpowering (save Carpenter), but Reyes, Weaver, and Suppan got in there and gave everything they had. And for all the talk of the young guys of the Tigers, it was young guys of the Cardinals who stepped up, Molina, Reyes, and Wainwright. The veteran Cardinals put their faith in their guts, in wanting it so bad it couldn't not come true. Rolen, Pujols (defensively), and Spiezio all gave powerful performances as well.

Finally, before the Series, everyone was talking about the managerial duel, and being a fan of the moves of the game, and why they happen, I was not surprised that La Russa made all the right ones. I was shocked that Leyland made so many bad ones. I agree with him on starting Verlander in Game 5, at least to the point of having to win 3 games. The public will forever mock him for that, but it was sound. Rogers had yet to pitch in the postseason in a park other than Comerica. He had a ton of drama surrounding him, and he has a history of responding badly to drama.

Before the World Series began, a customer came into the station wearing a "National League Champions" shirt. I said, pretty bluntly, "what're you doing? You don't buy the NL champs shirt until after the World Series." The customer laughed and said simply, "that's okay, it won't make a difference." You see, it does. Because now that guy just bought a shirt he's worn for two weeks, and will never wear again, because today he's going out and buying another one.

Secretly, from talking to many people before Game 5, St. Louis was hoping for Rogers. Going into Game 5 was the first time the fan base was confident, and perhaps the Cardinals themselves. We wanted Rogers, because we didn't just want to beat the Tigers, we wanted to beat the cheater.

But, I'll take it as I get it.

This championship means more to me than the Rams' Super Bowl, in part due to history, in part due to a greater love for baseball than football. A customer at the station was gracious enough to loan me a tape of Game 5, and despite the fact that I knew everything that happened, the 9th still had me anxious, and I was smiling from the start of the inning.

Don't really know what else to say. I'd stick some sappy closing line here, but I'm not really that kind of guy. Instead, I'll just go back to enjoying the moment, and figuring out the finances to obtain a World Series' hat.

One to Go...

Primarily because I swore to myself I'd try to post every day. Or at least most days:

Thank you, Detroit. Seriously. We couldn't have won that one without you.

V is for Victory

Well maybe, if we could just figure out what "victory" is.

Bush has consistently been telling us that we're winning the war in Iraq/on terror/whatever, without ever expressly stating what the objective is. It's fine to have ephermal objectives like defeating terrorism, but there still needs to be some definitive goals, and I think that's the majority of the problem we have there now.

Considering we went into the country to confiscate the mythical weapons of mass destruction that never really turned up, I'd say we're doing about as well in Iraq as is to be expected. Consider also that it should have been foreseen that Iraq has a population which, much like Afghanistan way back in the day, mostly hates one another, and you end up with what we have now.

So, theoretically, the idea should be pretty simple. Terrorism? Our responsibility. Sectarian violence? Iraq's responsibility. The problem is that the Iraqi government is either unable or unwilling to come to some kind of compromise on the situation, half of them fleeing to the United States for help, the other half condemning the United States for meddling. Not really a good situation for us.

No real point to this post, other than I'm getting fed up with Bush vowing victory in Iraq with no definition of what victory is.

Also, does anyone else kinda find it amusing that the press reports casualties in Iraq like the apocalypse has come? Things like "bloodiest day since the war started" tend to overstate the situation a little bit. To wit:

The American Revolutionary War, the first war we had, for the most part, had 4,435 casualties. The Civil War, 184,594 (though, to be fair, we were on both sides of that war). World War I? 53,402. World War II? 291,557. Korea, 33,741. Vietnam, 47,424.

Iraq? 2,241. The only comparable "war" we had is the War of 1812, and much like the Revolutionary War, there were quite a bit fewer people involved in the war in general. I'd imagine back in World War II days, if the news reported that 14 soldiers died in a single day, people would have wondered if there was a cease fire called. If you want to get really technical, World Wars I and II had death tolls in the tens of millions.

Another site states the number at 2,131 total, including civilians, but you get the point. I'd cite them, but really, I don't want to type "A HREF" that much. Google is your friend. Estimates for total death toll is 43,000-58,000, which, compared to World War II's 55 million, isn't all that impressive.

Alright, one cite, because it's an interesting graphical display of the death tolls of WWII: Here. While the Holocaust was pretty horrible, where's the massive outpouring of support for the Russian casualties here?

Back on track...

While I am the first to say that it is horrific that people are dying for such an idiotic and short-sighted cause to begin with, I kind of have an issue with the media for overplaying their hand here. While it is a concern, and fewer of our soldiers dying is a good thing, they need to tone it back a little with the scale of their statements.

More Americans are murdered in the United States in a day than have ever been killed in a day in Iraq, and the numbers are shockingly close to "more in a day than in a week," instead.

Why send our sons and daughters to Iraq, when we lose so many at home?

If You Ain't Cheatin', You Ain't Tryin'

I've been meaning to revive the blog for a while now, but haven't really stumbled on a worthwhile topic. Seems like Dirtgate's good enough for me.

Both ESPN and the Post-Dispatch have run wild over this, which I consider very weird, given that nothing actually happened. I was sitting at Rodger's house half-playing Deadlands, half-watching the game. I saw it on TV, and I had what was likely the similar reaction that the Cardinals had: "what the hell is that?" followed by getting back to the game (or attempting to play the game, given the Cardinals' hitting prowess in Game 2).

But when I got home and I saw pictures from the ALCS with the exact same splotch on his hand, I began to wonder. Reading articles, no one seemed to make the obvious statement. If it's dirt, or food, as has been alternately claimed since the game, then how did it end up in the exact same place on multiple days? It's not something that would fly in a court of law, but this isn't the court of law, it's the court of public opinion.

And that's more than enough evidence to tell me that he should have been ejected and suspended. Where the rulebook is concerned, it doesn't care that it's a World Series game, and rules are rules, and made to be followed. When Julian Tavarez was ejected for having a "pine tar-like substance" on the brim of his cap, he hadn't thrown a pitch. Nevermind the fact that he didn't know it was there until an umpire approached him.

If we're going to be consistent with the rules, either Rogers should have been ejected and suspended, or Tavarez should have simply been allowed to get another hat. I'm sure they could have found another one his size.

That all being said, I can appreciate the factors at work here. It's the World Series, and kicking someone out of the World Series, let alone ejecting a team's ace in the first inning of a game, is a grave decision to reach, and you have to be absolutely certain. I imagine the Tigers told him Fox caught his dirty hand on tape, and Rogers wiped off what he could as quickly as he could, and when they umpires came to him, his hand was stained, but there was nothing on it, so therefore, they had no proof, and couldn't throw him out based on what the cameras caught.

I'm thinking that's what happened, despite the massive lies and whatnought coming from all corners. Knowing Tony La Russa, if he thought, as he said that "it didn't look like dirt," he would have done everything he could to get him thrown out. I imagine he got the straight dope from the umpires, that the umpires thought he had something, but didn't have enough evidence that Rogers actually doctored a ball, and therefore, couldn't do anything, no matter how much La Russa complained. So the explanations came out as they did, with the Cardinals in kind of indignant defeat on the issue.

My mind, though, always goes back to the ALCS, where there's a camera shot of the exact same stain, in the exact same place, on Rogers' left hand.