Payback

What a difference Wes Welker makes. The Slot Machine, who was so dearly missed during the Jets' Week 2 win in the Meadowlands, came up huge for the Patriots in a crucial division game this afternoon. Now that the game has gone final, and with the Patriots winning so handily, it is easy to forget just how much was on the line today. The Jets, who have been in an absolute tailspin since their hot start, had a chance to turn it all around. A win would've brought them to .500; restored the team's shattered confidence; made a statement to the league; and put them one game behind the Patriots in the division, both in terms of overall record and division record.

And don't think the players and coaches didn't know it. After their home loss to the Jaguars last week, Mark Sanchize reminded us that there was "no more wiggle room," and the local press billed it as the team's last hope. A different outcome yesterday would have profoundly affected both teams' seasons.

But the Jets didn't show up. Their league-best running game produced just 104 yards, 38 of which came on their final drive of the game, in what was effectively garbage time. Their vaunted defense surrendered 410 yards and allowed the Patriots to possess the ball for nearly 40 minutes. But no shortcoming was as significant as that of Sanchez, who produced one of the worst games of his rocky season, throwing 4 interceptions, and losing a fumble.

But even just the turnovers, which alone were probably enough to cost the Jets any chance at the game, don't tell the story of just how far Sanchez has fallen. The young stud, who at the start of the season was drawing comparisons to Namath, is now one of the worst starting quarterbacks in the league. He has thrown 16 INTs in 10 games, trailing only Jay Cutler for most in the League. And he's completing just 52% of his passes, ranking him just behind Kerry Collins and just ahead of JaMarcus Russell, both of whom have been benched for poor performance. In fact, Sanchez's accuracy and 61.1 passer rating is the worst in the league for anyone currently with a starting job.

And the Jets are not making up for it. Now 4-6 overall and 1-4 in the AFC East, they've effectively put their season on ice. While not yet mathematically eliminated from playoff contention, the Jets would need a series of miracles to climb back into it, and appear to have given up hope.

The Patriots, on the other, showed some resolve, bouncing back from last week's heartbreaking loss in Indianapolis, and exacting revenge for the events of Week 2, chronicled in these pages. Brady was his usual hall-of-fame self, throwing another 300 yard game and connecting with Randy Moss for a touchdown pass. Welker--of course--had a monster game, catching 15 passes for 192 yards, and even the maligned Laurence Maroney, with two TD runs, came up big.

Now, they're on to perhaps the season's toughest test, attempting to tackle the unbeaten Saints in New Orleans. It will be a tough game, but they'll go into this key week of practice coming off a crucial win.

MILES:

Well, at least Wes Welker has a terrible nickname. I was beginning to think the man was without fault, or weakness. He was great yesterday, finding holes in the Jets' defense whenever the Pats needed a big play, or just wanted to throw to him, for that matter. Rex Ryan and his vaunted defense just didn't have an answer for him, which struck me as odd because Darrelle Revis was more than holding his own against Randy Moss. Someone should have been free to shadow Welker. No one did. Or could. 

The story of this game, though, was the horrendous play of Mark Sanchez. With five turnovers (4 INTs, 1 fumble), Sanchez, the cornerstone of the franchise, handed the Patriots 17 points. That just can't happen. I'm going to have to practice some patience with the 23-year-old, but I can't pretend he's not maddeningly frustrating. Statistically, he's a total mess; while emotionally, he's about as sturdy as Kevin Garnett's surgically repaired right knee. 

Still, I'm not about to write him off. The young stud, as you like to call him, is still very much a work in progress, as is, evidently, the entire Jets team. Sanchez does have a ton of talent; he just has to learn how to take care of the football. If he can do that, everything else, I hope, should fall into place. It probably won't be this season, but I remain optimistic about his future, despite his present struggles. 

BEN:

No, I wouldn't write him off either, and while I think he's potentially got a bright future, there is also plenty of cause for concern. The "aw shucks, I'm just a rich handsome quarterback from a powerhouse school" routine worked while things were rosy, but in losses, Sanchez has also occasionally been petulant and easily rattled. These may very well be rookie qualities, and maybe, like Peyton Manning, he'll outgrow them. On the other hand, there are players with all the talent who never mature enough to be effective. Where are you now, Ryan Leaf? How's that starting job treating you, Matt Leinart? Are you glad you got your trade, Jay Cutler?

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying Sanchez is a bust--it's much, much too early to make a call like that. But his future is far from decided; and at some point the growing pains are going to have to stop.

One last thing: I think your read of the Revis/Moss battle is a little stingy. I'll admit Revis did a great job, but one reason Welker was open so much is that Kerry Rhodes was very often helping over the top on Moss. (In fact, on Welker's longest reception of the day, three of the team's four DBs converged on Moss, allowing the little man to get his release.) And, while Revis was highly effective, he STILL surrendered five catches and a touchdown, and if not for a Brady overthrow, would've surrendered a 60-yard bomb for a second score.

I won't overstate the case--he's an elite corner, and he kept Moss at bay for most of the day, no mean feat. But I think your version of the events is a bit revisionist, and on this blog, we must speak our minds.

By the way, can I take a straw poll of you readers on whether "The Slot Machine" is terrible? Better or worse than "Sanchize"? Anyone? Come on, it's cheeky! He's small and amusing!

MILES:

You seem quite taken with Senor Sanchez's looks. Maybe if he looked more like, say, Eli Manning, you'd be better inclined to cut the kid some slack. Eli, if you remember correctly, got off to a terrible start in New York (1-7 in his first eight starts, with 9 INTs and a 55.1 quarterback rating) before wining a Super Bowl Most Valuable Player award. 

Sanchez will never be confused with Brady or Peyton, but he will be fine. It's just going to take some time. 

As for the Revis-Moss debate, I'm not a revisionist. Five catches for 34 yards is hardly vintage Moss; reads more like a Jericho Cotchery line to me. On Welker's longest catch, four DBs went to jam both Moss and Welker at the line of scrimmage, according to reporters who understand these things better than I. They all missed Welker, and either Revis or, I think, Eric Smith (possibly Kerry Rhodes) didn't cover over top. The Jets just blew the coverage; they weren't trying to triple Moss. 

Give me a break, though. Revis is one of the few Jets I don't have to worry about. Don't try to take that away from me. In return, I'm willing to concede that "Sanchize" is a terrible nickname. I just think Welker deserves a better nickname than Slot Machine. 

The Question

According to reports, it's starting to look likely that Allen Iverson, lately of the Memphis Grizzlies, is coming to New York.

Is this the right move for the Knicks? It almost doesn't matter. In NYT reporter Howard Beck's uncontroversial opinion, the team is "in free fall" (though they did get their second win last night, to improve to 2-9.) The team has gotten past the expensive and unpleasant Stephon Marbury situation, as well as the Isiah Thomas situation, but now, undistracted, they've simply got to assemble enough talent to win, and it hasn't happened yet.

Head coach Mike D'Antoni was brought in to install his "system," a run-and-gun offensive scheme that leads to more scoring for both teams. But the Knicks don't have the personnel that made it so successful with the Phoenix Suns. Forward David Lee is aggressive, but nowhere near as dynamic as Amare Stoudemire. Danilo Gallinari, who went 0-2 in 17 minutes last night, is a great shooter, but his game hasn't shown much depth. And Chris Duhon, while not a bad point guard, is no Steve Nash.

Enter Allen Iverson, who was too unhappy to stay with Memphis. Iverson has long been known as a one-man show, and while his career numbers are spectacular, he's also been a difficult teammate. In the long run, there's very little reason to think that Iverson, at 34 years old and coming off a truncated season, will turn this team into a winner. Most people have been pretty clear that this is an asses-in-the-seats maneuver. With rumors that Iverson may cost several million to bring on board, the question must be asked: have the Knicks already given up on this season?

On an unrelated note, here is a beautiful video.



MILES:

It appears the Knicks are going to pass on Iverson. I think, ultimately, this is the right call. Believe me, I went back and forth about this all week. Wednesday night, for instance, after the Knicks knocked off the Pacers, I thought the addition of AI would help kick start the Knicks' season.  Yesterday, however, I started to wonder if he would even make a difference. My ambivalence leads me to believe that AI's addition would probably, at best, end up a wash. Sure, he might get the team, maybe, 5-10 additional wins, but so what? Is there really a difference between 20 wins and 25? Thanks to Isiah, the Knicks don't have a draft pick this year, so it really doesn't matter how many games they win or lose. I'd rather see the young guys play, mainly Toney Douglas, who is already more effective than Chris Duhon; Wilson Chandler; Gallo; and Jordan Hill. I'm also interested in watching the gradual progress of Eddy Curry. The guy's been through so much in recent years; it would be an absolute shame to see him piss everything away, including his last chance. 

To answer your question, though, I do think D'Antoni and Walsh have resigned themselves to a subpar, possibly horrible, season, at least to an extent. Since they arrived in New York, they have been (rightfully?) almost exclusively focused on 2010. Whether they'll admit it or not, I think the coach and general manager are willing to take their beatings this year, with the intention of going all out for one or two premiere free agents this summer. Recently, D'Antoni called his players "zombies." He was technically referring to their recent play, but considering that about 85 percent of the roster won't be back next season, the nickname probably revealed a little bit more than he intended. 

Does this team really need, then, a zombie Allen Iverson? I shudder to think. 

Reality Check

No, not the Jets, silly. The Patriots.

Lost amidst the ongoing debate about Bill Belichick’s ridiculous decision to go for it on fourth down, is the fact that the Patriots blew a 17-point, 4th-quarter lead against the Colts last night. Even worse, they were up 13 with two-and-a-half minutes to play. It’s been said good teams don’t blow leads late. Which kind of begs the question, are the Patriots a good team?

I’m not so sure. At 6-3, the Pats are significantly better than the Jets, who are in a total tailspin. What’s more, the Pats sit atop the AFC East and are an absolute lock to make the playoffs.

But so what? Despite their record and place in the standings, the Pats have yet to beat this season what the kids today call a good team. The Pats' six wins have come against the lowly Buffalo Bills (3-6), the inconsistent Miami Dolphins (4-5), the truly awful Tampa Bay Buccaneers (1-8), the mediocre Baltimore Ravens (4-4), the so-so Atlantic Falcons (5-4) and the reeling Tennessee Titans (3-6), who wanted absolutely nothing do with the Patriots or the snow. For those keeping score at home, the Pats’ wins have come against teams with a combined record of 20-33, about 10 games below even the most liberal definition of mediocrity.

Granted, the Patriots can only play the teams they play. And, besides the Jets in Week 2, the Patriots have beaten the teams they’re supposed to beat. At the same time, though, the Pats are 1-2 against teams with a winning record, including their home win against the Falcons. They got outplayed in Denver, and just flat out blew last night’s game against the Colts.

Critics can slam Belichick all they want, and Pats fans can point out that the odds backed him up. But, if I counted myself among them, I’d be more concerned as a New England fan with the very real possibility that the 2009 Patriots, like their Red Sox counterparts, are simply a second-tier team. Which, knowing Pats fans, is probably more excruciating than Jets fans having to endure yet another lost season.

If Pats fans need any advice on how to handle adversity, I'd suggest looking elsewhere besides Belichick and his handlers. They make Obama's Secret Service detail look like a bunch of bathroom attendants. 

BEN:

I find this post surprisingly comforting. It's nice to know, while you are busy licking your wounds from what can only be described as an excruciating loss, that somewhere, somehow, a New York fan will find a way to totally misinterpret and overstate the consequences of the loss.

Here's an obvious point, for starters: they put up 34 points against the defense averaging the least points per game in the NFL. Here's another one: they lost by one point, on the road, to an undefeated team, and by most accounts outplayed them for about 55 minutes. I'd say those are both signs of a pretty damn good team.

Come on. Could you really watch that game and not see it as a contest between two elite teams? I'm sure you won't question the legit-ness of the Patriots offense. (Or will you? One never knows, I guess.) And their kicking game, also strong. The defense? Yeah, they got pretty chewed up there at the end of the game, but they were also down to their backup-backups on the defensive line. And overall, they've performed very well this season. Both stats and analysts say so.

As far as their alleged problem of winning only against bad teams. This strikes me as particularly revisionist. Just a reminder: the Patriots played exclusively undefeated teams until week 6.

The quality of NFL competition is not a fixed quantity. Teams, like for instance the Jets and Giants, to take two random examples, can look like world-beaters one minute and also-rans the next. When the Ravens came into Foxborough, they were out for blood, and, as noted elsewhere in this blog, seen as one of the top teams in the NFL. Do their subsequent struggles retroactively mean that they weren't good? Of course not, and there are lots of reasons why. Game plans develop over the season. Players get injured. Weather conditions change. You have to rely on what's happening in front of your face. And watching that game, I could see it was two good teams gutting it out.

The Jets have made it easier on me today. As down-and-out as they've been lately, a win against a thoroughly mediocre Jaguars team--at home, coming off their bye week--would have put them back to within one game of the division lead. And could have made this weekend's divisional rematch and all-the-marbles kind of game. But Rex Ryan didn't have his team ready.

By the way, don't let anyone fool you into thinking that the Jaguars' mediocrity is similar to think "mediocrity" of the Falcons and Ravens, both considered to be playoff contenders. The Jags have slouched their way to a 5-4 record while allowing 39 more points than they've scored. The Falcons are 5-4 at +27; the Ravens are 4-4 at +52. (While we're at it, the Jets are +41, and the Patriots are +109). If you prefer gambling metrics, how about if I note that the supposedly-mediocre Ravens are favored by a point against the Colts?

But I suppose I digress. What was your point again? You feel that the Patriots, by virtue of a last-second one-point loss against an undefeated team, have shown themselves to be second-rate. This must also apply to the Bengals, who gave up a crazy game-winning TD to the undefeated Broncos. And to the Steelers, who gave up a game-winning TD to the Bengals. And to the Vikings, whose two turnovers in the 4th quarter clinched a win for the Steelers. Is the facile-ness of this argument self-evident yet? The only two teams you CAN'T say it about are the Saints and Colts, because they haven't lost. So is your point that the Pats aren't one of the top two teams in the NFL right now? If so, I concede.

MILES:

We got a good one going here. 

I'd just like to point out that the Patriots, at 6-3, have the same record as the Arizona Cardinals and Dallas Cowboys, hardly beasts of the National Football League. The Pats also share the same record as the the Kyle Orton-led Denver Broncos and Norv Turner's San Diego Chargers. 

Further, the Pats's six wins include one--I repeat, one-- road win, against the 1-8 Tampa Bay Buccaneers, who have allowed 99 more points than they've scored. Speaking of the +/- system, four of the Pats six wins have come against teams that have allowed more points than they've scored: the Bills (-70); the Dolphins (-9); the Titans (-66); and the aforementioned Bucs (-99). Only the Ravens and the Falcons have played in positive numbers. 

To be fair, I guess you could argue that beating the Ravens in Foxboro in Week 4 qualifies as a signature win, but I wouldn't be so quick to hang your hat on it. Here's how NFL.com describes that game's decisive play:

Baltimore's potential game-winning drive stalled as Mark Clayton dropped a perfect fourth-down pass that would have given the Ravens a first-and-goal. The Patriots took a knee and ran out the remaining 28 seconds off the clock.

More fortunate than convincing, wouldn't you say? Kind of like the gift Buffalo handed you in Week 1. Think about it for a second: 6-3 could easily, easily, be 5-4 or even 4-5. It's not, but I'm making the point, not entirely unfounded, I believe, that the Pats are a soft 6-win team. Not that they are themselves soft, mind you; only their record. They success thus far is primarily the result of a superior offense, a weak, borderline pathetic division, and a less-than-taxing schedule. All of these factors have helped camouflage some of the team's biggest weaknesses. That they are the Patriots, I think, analysts and commentators have been loathe to call them on it. These talking heads are letting the past success define, or at least color, their perceptions of this year's Patriots team. 

I don't think the team stands up to closer scrutiny.  Take, for instance, the Pats' vaunted +109 point differential. On the surface, it's pretty impressive. However, a 59-0 rout of a truly deplorable and dysfunctional Titans team, who entered that contest losers of back-to-back games by 20 and 22 points, respectively, will do wonders to a team's statistics. As will playing the hapless Bucs.

Which is why I prefer to look at a team's record. As Bill Parcells likes to remind us, "You are what your record says you are." At 6-3, the Pats are squarely in the middle of the pack, jostling for position against the Broncos, the Chargers, and the Steelers, the AFC's second-tier teams. The Pats could eventually break free and make a strong run into the playoffs, based almost entirely on the team's offensive talent, but I don't see that happening. The defense is suspect, particularly in the 4th quarter, a pretty big bugaboo. Just ask Bill Belichick. He doesn't even believe in them.     

Finally, I can't let this one go unnoticed: "the Patriots played exclusively undefeated teams until week 6." Seriously? You're really calling the 0-0 Bills undefeated? Sure, the Jets, coming off their Week 1 against the Texans, were, technically, undefeated, as were the 2-0 Falcons. The 3-0 Ravens, thanks to Mark Clayton, literally let a win slip through their fingers. In Week 5, the previously undefeated Broncos beat you, as noted above. As did the undefeated Colts this week. 

The Pats are a good team, vastly superior to the Jets--and most other teams in the NFL. I'll give you that. All I'm saying is, they aren't one of the league's elite teams, and I'd be surprised, almost shocked, if they got out of the second round of the playoffs. 

BEN:

You're right that they could have lost to the Bills or Ravens. But they could equally well have beaten the Broncos (to whom they lost in overtime, on the road, after losing the coin toss) and the Colts (obviously). If those things had happened, they'd be 8-1 and we wouldn't be having this conversation at all. The fact that they didn't win those games is no more or less indicative of their character than the near-losses against Buffalo and Baltimore.

The NFL provides a much smaller sample size than baseball. Each statistic, but particularly wins and losses, is hugely impacted by single games. You know I love stats, but this one doesn't really come down to them. I don't think the Patriots should be punished for beating bad teams, but sure, their mettle is tested against the good ones.

If you feel, as you seem to, that the Steelers, Chargers, Patriots, and Broncos comprise the AFC's second tier, then I presume what you're saying is that the top tier consists only of two teams--the Colts and Bengals. And, I mean, sure, as far as that goes, I'll agree. Despite the allegation that "the media" are loathe to criticize the Patriots (an odd point to make, I'd submit, in view of the three links you included at the top of this post), I think most people have had questions about the team all year long: about Brady's return to form, about the youth of the defense, etc.

To return once more, to whatever your point is: I am happy to agree that the Patriots are not clearly better than the Steelers or Chargers. I think all three teams have a shot at the Super Bowl. You'd be shocked if the Patriots made it out of the second round of the playoffs. Meaning what? That they might not be among the top 4 teams in the NFL? Is this what a "reality check" looks like? I think this is kind of a small criticism, and not even clearly an accurate one. I'll say this: I don't think the Colts have any more desire to play us in January than they did three days ago.

MILES:

See, I think that's just it. There's this prevailing notion that the Pats still loom over the league, that the road to the Super Bowl goes through Foxborough. They don't, and it doesn't. Why wouldn't the Colts have any more desire to play the Pats in January than they did three days ago? The Colts won, coming back from 17 down in the 4th quarter. As a fan, you have every right to remain optimistic about the Pats' chances, but you also have to consider the very real likelihood that, this year, the Pats simply don't have it, even if you're not yet ready to admit it.  

BEN:

Do I really need to explain why the Colts don't feel differently about the Patriots? I would think the answer is obvious: because they won in the last seconds by one point and needed a miracle comeback. Why would they feel sure that would happen again? Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the Pats are better than they are. (Or that the "road to the Super Bowl comes through Foxborough.") But I am saying that nothing about the game was definitive.

I don't think you need to get creative to feel that this Pats team, while not the best in the league, is good enough to beat anyone. Most people seem to agree; if you think this is part of a pro-Patriots media conspiracy, well, which one of us is letting his biases get in the way?

MILES:

I stand by my missive, biased or not.  

Getting it Started

The Celtics are off to a 3rd consecutive hot start, with their league-best 8-1 record, the lone loss coming to a resurgent Suns team. Three straight seasons of early success have actually put the Celtics into the record books; since the Garnett and Allen trades, they are an astonishing 57-6 in games played before Christmas.

They've still got about 90% of the season left to play, but the first few weeks have been very auspicious. Garnett's knee injury appears to be nothing but a memory. The team has given a lucrative contract to Rajon Rondo, who has been earning his money two years now, and continues to be one of the elite point guards in the league, ranking 4th in assists and 1st in steals. Pierce, Allen, and Perkins are doing their thing, too.

The defense is 1st in the league in fewest points allowed; the team has won at home and on the road, on short rest and long. They made an early statement with their season opener in Cleveland. Tonight's big game in Atlanta will be another test. Things in the Atlantic Division seem pretty free and clear, too, at this early stage.

Things are not looking quite so good for the Knicks, who have managed just one win so far in nine attempts. But, hey, at least they're not the Nets...

MILES:

Yours is a very good team, particularly the starting five. 94-25, when healthy, is ridiculous. The pre-Christmas record, though, is incidental, as much a byproduct of the utter crapiness of their division competition as it is of the team's talent level. But who cares? That's kind of like parsing Obama's campaign strategy against McCain in the San Francisco Bay Area. It doesn't matter. The Celtics are just that freaking good, and are a total nightmare for any team in the NBA, including the Lakers. A wise man once told me not to bet against the toughness of Paul Pierce. It's like denying the Holocaust, or something. 

Fish in a Barrel

The gap in the AFC East continues to widen. The Patriots did what the Jets just couldn't pull off: they took care of the Dolphins. In yesterday's 27-17 win, the Pats made key adjustments to handle another new wrinkle from the Dolphins, the so-called "Pistol" formation. With the Jets idle, the Patriots extended their division lead to two games in the AFC East, and got a crucial divisional win.

In the wake of a dismal 1-4 stretch, and with their brash head coach beginning to draw criticism, the Jets are using their week off to lick their wounds and prepare for a lenient schedule in the month of November, including games against the Jaguars, Bills, Panthers, and Buccaneers. The Pats, on the other hand, have a very tough month ahead: both of the league's last two undefeated teams lie ahead, and both are road games. The Pats are good enough to win either game, but it will take a serious effort. The divisional race will almost certainly tighten.

Notwithstanding a bludgeoning of a terrible Raiders team, (and hot dog-gate) the Jets are absolutely reeling. They are inconsistent, undisciplined, and injured right now, and it remains to be seen whether they can bounce back. If they can't get a win against the hapless Jags coming off a bye week, your boy Rex Ryan is going to start hearing it from the media.

Still, as much as we New Englanders would like to feel otherwise, much will hang on the crucial November 22 showdown with the Jets in Foxborough. There's still much to be determined before that game is played, but I will say this: I think Bill Belichick is going to be out for blood.

MILES:

The Yankees won the World Series. 

BEN:

You can't hide from football forever, Doyle. I haven't even pointed out that the Celtics have opened a 6.5-game lead over the Knicks in the first seven games of the season.

MILES:

I understand. I just didn't watch a single minute of football this week. The National Football League still feels like a homework assignment, and I took full advantage of the Jets’ much-needed bye. The next couple of weeks should be interesting for both teams. While the Jets take on Jacksonville and Carolina at home, sandwiched by a road game at Foxboro, the Patriots play at Indianapolis, host the Jets, and then travel to New Orleans. If the Jets are going to make a run at the division title, they probably need to win the next three games. Unlikely, given their recent state of play, but it should be interesting to see how Rex Ryan and the boys respond.

As for the Knicks. I’ve got nothing. The only reason they’re “only” six games behind the Celtics is because the Knicks, a truly bad team, have only played seven games. They’ll be 20 games out before the All-Star Game.

The Empire Strikes Back

The Yankees are World Series champs. Even in California, the approximate midpoint of the Yankees' Empire, this just feels right. Andy was dandy. Matsui went out with a bang. Marte finally earned his pinstripes. And Mo was Mo, the greatest of all time. It was a resounding victory: the Yankees put to bed early any lingering doubts about whether or not they could close out the gritty Phillies, jumping ahead 2-0 in the second behind World Series MVP Hideki Matsui's 2-run blast of Pedro Martinez, before finally pulling away in the fifth. After Mo got Shane Victorino to ground out to Robinson Cano, the Yankees celebrated their 27th World Series title in their new home, and their second title this decade. So much for curses. Either one.

Last night's victory raises an interesting and, per this blog, a somewhat provocative question: Are the Yankees the team of the decade? I'll spare you the suspense. Fuck yeah, they are. The numbers don't lie. The Yankees won a MLB-best 965 regular seasons games from 2000-2009, 45 more than the second-winningest team, the Boston Red Sox. They also captured eight American League East titles, also a league best. Further, the Yankees appeared in nine out of 10 postseasons, also a league best, winning 11 total series, again, a league best. I'm sensing a trend here. In the process, the Yankees captured four American League Pennants and two World Series championships. Not bad for a decade's work.

So, Ben, what do you think? Are you ready to concede the millennium's first decade to the Evil Empire?

BEN:

Ah well. We regular folks had to know this day was coming. The Yankees have been loaded with unlucky or malfunctioning talent for eight years; they had to get it together sooner or later. And, as one Yankees fan unironically said to me a few weeks ago, they finally got another star player to take the pressure off A-Rod.

I have to concede. They were baseball's best team this year, and they earned the title, getting hot in June and never really looking back. This is really the team they tried so gregariously to put together for the last eight years, and it finally clicked.

I find "Team of the Decade" to be a bit of a silly debate--it ultimately doesn't have a whole lot of impact. (Do we all instantly remember the team of the 70s? 80s? 90s? Does it matter?) But since we're debating, I guess it depends what "Team of the Decade" means. A lot of people would probably say that it means the best overall team during the ten-year period, in which case, how could I disagree that it's the Yankees? The numbers don't lie.

But there's at least one other thing it could mean. Maybe it's similar to, say, "Man of the Year," in which case it means the team with the most cultural significance, or the most memorable team. And I think that distinction belongs to Boston. The Sox did things never before accomplished in MLB history, as opposed to things only very nearly accomplished since 2000. They also completely changed the entire culture of their organization, and, in their way, rewrote the history of the game. Witness, for instance, how you indulged in seeking out some "curses" that the Yankees reversed. How much meaning would those have without the original?

I'm not sure I ultimately care that much who is "Team of the Decade." I was overjoyed when the Sox won in 2004, and again when they won in 2007. Can't that be enough? Isn't this kind of grandstanding exactly why people hate the Yankees?

Damon's Two-For-One Special

For years, the Yankees have been celebrated for their ability to work the count. Take, for instance, Paul O'Neill's epic 10-pitch at-bat against Mets closer Armando Benitez in the 2000 World Series. After fouling off pitch after pitch after pitch, O'Neill finally drew a walk, setting into motion a series of events that would, eventually, lead to a Yankees come-from-behind win in Game 1. The Yankees, as we all know, would then go on to win the World Series in five games. In hindsight, O'Neill's at-bat was, really, the turning point of that series, and the high-water mark of the Yankees' last championship team.

Cut to last night. Top of the ninth. Johnny Damon against Brad Lidge. For nine pitches, Damon battled Lidge, fouling off three pretty nasty 2-strike pitches before finally lining an hard-earned, opposite field single to left. Damon's at-bat was every bit as impressive as O'Neill's. Not only did Damon make Lidge throw more pitchers than he would have liked, Damon kept the inning alive for the heart of the Yankees' line up. Exactly what the No. 2 hitter is supposed to do.

What Damon pulled off on the base pads, though, was even more important, even more memorable, than what he did in the batter's box. After easily swiping second, Damon immediately took off for third, taking advantage of the Phillies' defensive shift against Mark Teixeira. The double-steal seemed to rattle Lidge, who quickly drilled Texiera before serving up a go-ahead double to Alex Rodriguez. It's no accident that A-Rod saw two fastballs during his at-bat. Lidge, it seemed, was not about to throw his slider with a man on third. He couldn't risk a wild pitch. Damon changed the whole complexity of the game, as they like to say in the FOX broadcasting booth.

With a gritty at-bat and some heads-up base running, Damon put the Yankees in a position to capture their 27 World Series Championship. In Yankeeland, Damon's at-bat will always rival O'Neill's and, like it or not, his double-steal will go down as one of the most famous stolen bases in postseason play, certainly the most famous since 2004.

BEN:

Sure, I guess. If ever there's a discussion of "the postseason's most famous stolen bases," I feel sure it would be on there. It was a heads-up play in a tight inning in the World Series, and lord knows the media loves to talk about those things. (By the way, does anyone doubt that if Jeter, rather than Damon, had made that play, it would be the only thing we heard about this morning? That at least one columnist would've claimed that no player but Jeter is capable of such magic?) But I digress. So: should we give Johnny Damon the Dave Roberts Memorial Stolen Base Award? Ok, I'll agree to that. For me, though, the narrative of that inning takes place inside Brad Lidge's head. He's made his career--such as it once was--on throwing that slider for strikes. To be too scared to throw it with a runner on third, that says more to me about why he can't get it done than about Damon's steal. Ever since that Pujols homer, Lidge has been scared of the big hitters, and it's a shame Philadelphia doesn't have anyone better to turn to.

If hindsight is what we're speaking about, I have to say, I don't think anyone will remember this as a close series. Maybe something like "Yankees 4, Cliff Lee 2." (If they even win tonight.) Or "The October of A-Rod." Personally, I'm disappointed that the Phillies haven't put up more of a fight these last three games--I think they're the only National League team good enough to beat the Yankees on a good day.

There's really nothing any Yankee team can do that will ever rival the momentousness of that 2004 series. 86 years, the Bambino the 3-0 lead, Ortiz's pyrotechnic clutch hitting--come on now. But, yes, a very heads-up play, another big situation in which Brad Lidge didn't come up with it. And a great at-bat by Damon, forcing Lidge to display his full arsenal, and not even get an out.

You don't want to jump to conclusions--they still have to play at least one more game--but I admit I'm disappointed in this series so far. It's never fun for a Sox fan, especially one living in New York, to watch the Yankees win it all, but at least the Phillies could've made a race of it. But who knows, maybe Cliff Lee can turn it around tonight.

MILES:

I just arrived in sunny California. Specifically, sunny San Francisco. I have to say, it's not a bad place to visit. A man can get used to this.

I'll admit, too, that this World Series isn't particularly exciting. Nobody in the Golden State seems to care. At least not so far. This, of course, could very well change if Pedro comes up big tomorrow night, and, following that, either Cole Hamels and his 25-cent head or J.A. Happ come through in Game 7. Unlikely, I think. That's simply too many "ifs."

Speaking of which, if it weren't for Cliff and Chase Utley, this series would have been over Sunday night. I'm not trying to be reductive or dismissive of the Phillies. They are, like you pointed out, a very good baseball team, and the idea of Ryan Howard finding his swing somewhere along the Jersey Turnpike sends shivers down my spine, just as much as the specter of the Jersey Devil. But, outside of Lee and Utley, the Phillies have yet to rise to the occasion, or have yet to take advantage of the Yankees' so-so play.

Somehow I don't see that changing tomorrow night. I wonder, though, if a World Series is won in the Bronx, and there's no one in California to witness it, does it, in fact, happen? I'm going to have to ponder that down on Haight-Ashbury.

Trouble in the Meadowlands

Most New Yorkers are understandably busy with the Yankees these days, but all is not quiet on the football front. The once-invincible Giants, after rattling off 5 straight wins to start the season, have dropped to 5-3 and lost control of the NFC East. The change in the winds may have something to do with the quality of their competition--4 of those 5 wins came against teams that currently have a combined record of 5-24--but may also be attributable to injuries that have hampered Eli Manning and Mario Manningham, a QB-WR duo that recently looked like one of the top tandems in the NFC.

But even these stumbling Giants, who have a home date with the schizophrenic Chargers this weekend, are looking like the best New Jersey has to offer lately. The New York Jets, who only a month ago anointed themselves Super Bowl champions, have dropped 4 out of 5 games, including two straight to the Dolphins, and one devastating home loss against the Bills. The throaty-in-every-possible-sense Rex Ryan, who feuded with the Dolphins in the offseason and renewed his arrogant vows last week, will have to wait until next year to get his licks in against this self-appointed nemesis. Despite a couple better-looking performances from Mark Sanchez, the Jets have failed to cash in on a string of weak opponents. There's no doubt that this team is reeling.

With the Patriots having coasted comfortably into their bye week against two (formerly) winless teams, they've now got a solid 1.5-game lead in the division. The next few weeks will keep it interesting, with the Pats taking on, in order, Miami, Indianapolis, the Jets, New Orleans, and Miami again. With road games against the last two undefeated teams in the NFL, they've got their work cut out for them. And, at the same time, the Jets are looking at a minimum of four more easy games: Jacksonville, Carolina, Buffalo, and Tampa Bay, interrupted only by a big game in Foxboro against the Patriots. Despite the embarrassing losses of the past month, the Jets have a chance to get back into the divisional race if they can sweep up against crappy teams. But, with their overly emotional personality and inconsistent play, it's got to be gut-check time going into the bye. One more of these "oops" games, and they're going to be in trouble.