Ken Davidoff's baseball insider

Here is my column from last night's NLCS Game 2. While I think the Phillies will win this series, I found it interesting how many Dodgers _ Joe Torre, Manny Ramirez, Derek Lowe and Nomar Garciaparra _ have experience at climbing out of this postseason hole.

Nice win by the Red Sox, meanwhile, in ALCS Game 1. I was trying to listen to this on my drive home from Philly, but I'm going to have to tell Watchdog that, in Central Jersey, the 1050 signal was so bad that I was hearing more of this song (on some competing station, I guess) than the game.

Have a great day.

1. The Phillies, leading 1-0 over the Dodgers in the National League Championship Series, will lose today's Game 2, 8-1, as Manny Ramirez will hit two homers. But Philadelphia will rebound with a Game 3 victory Sunday, 5-3, and winning pitcher Jamie Moyer will say afterward, "Beating the Dodgers was the only way I could get that stupid commercial out of my head."

2. The Red Sox will jump out on top of the ALCS in tonight's Game 1, winning by a 6-1 margin at Tropicana Field. Tomorrow night, however, Tampa Bay will respond with a 3-2 victory. Both games will be marred by the profane rantings of a unidentified fan from a third base-side luxury box. "Just wait 'til next year," the fan will shout. "You'll both be bowing down to the Yankees!" Fortunately, the fan will fall asleep by the third inning.

3. Angels manager Mike Scioscia, signed through next year with a club option for 2010, will demand an extension, or else he'll quit. Owner Arte Moreno will call Scioscia's bluff and not grant the extension, marking Scioscia's second unsuccessful squeeze play of the week.

4. So we're a couple of weeks into the postseason , and we still can't talk enough about something that occurred last offseason: The Yankees' decision to pass on Johan Santana.

As you know, I think the Yankees made the right call. But I'm positive, more than anything else, that it's too early to declare this a Brian Cashman failure. Could it be, in time? Absolutely, if Phil Hughes and Ian Kennedy never make it and Santana gives the Mets five more seasons like his 2008. But we're not there yet.

One point that intrigued me, however, was this: How would the Yankees have done in 2008 if they HAD traded Hughes for Santana? Brian Cashman, referring to Hank Steinbrenner, said this to me on June 7: ""He told me, in hindsight, looking back on that situation and where we're at right now _ with the offense, the way it's been doing _ having another starter here wouldn't have necessarily made any difference. He would've had X amount of losses because we wouldn't have scored as many runs up to this point as you would've expected, either."

That tune never really changed; even in his Oct. 1 news conference to announce his return, Cashman noted that the Yankees allowed fewer runs in 2008 (727) than they had in 2007 (777), therefore refuting the idea that Santana would've made the difference. What killed the Yankees, Cashman said, was their surprisingly diminished run production, from 968 in '07 to 789 in '08.

Naturally, however, with Santana aboard, the Yankees would've allowed even fewer runs, right? But how big a drop? Enough to make the Yankees a playoff team?

I'm no math wiz; my math dominance ended junior year of high school, with Mr. Fouratt's Math Analysis class. The Baseball Prospectus folks would probably regard my math with the same pity that Lewis exhibited when he was trying to help Stan Gable use a desktop computer in "Revenge of the Nerds III: The Next Generation."

But what the heck. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. So here's how I went about answering this question:

a) I calculated all 30 teams' runs per game.

b) I analyzed all 34 of Santana's starts with the Mets, using his game ERA to determine how he did against the team's runs-per-game average. For instance, in his very first start, March 31 in Florida, he allowed two earned runs in seven innings to the Marlins. That's a 2.57 game ERA. The Marlins averaged 4.78 runs per game. So Santana scored a -2.21 - he allowed 2.21 fewer runs than Florida's average.

c) By adding up all 34 of Santana's "plus" and "minus" numbers _ incredibly, he allowed more than the team's average in just four of those starts _ and dividing them by 34, I computed that, on average, Santana allowed 1.83 runs below a team's per-game run output.

d) Assuming the Yankees would've given up Hughes for Santana, I plugged Santana into the games of Hughes and his successors. Santana averaged 6.89 innings per start, so for every three starts, I gave him 7, 7 and 6 2/3 innings pitched, which averages out to just about 6.89. Should I have given Santana fewer innings in the tougher American League? Perhaps, although Toronto's Roy Halladay (246) surpassed Santana's NL-leading 234 1/3 in '08.

In Hughes' first start, for instance, he allowed two runs over six innings, and the bullpen pitched a shutout seventh, totaling two runs through seven innings. Over his theoretical seven innings, Santana would've allowed 1.99 runs, which I got from taking the Blue Jays' 4.41 runs per game, subtracting Santana's 1.83 and then multiplying it by .77 (to get the seven-inning total). So Santana get a -.01 for the game.

Hughes made six starts, then Darrell Rasner replaced Hughes and made 15 starts, then Ian Kennedy replaced Rasner and made one start that Kennedy didn't think was so horrible. Rasner returned for five more starts before being replaced, mercifully, by Alfredo Aceves. And on Sept. 17, Hughes returned for two starts, giving his "slot" 30 starts overall.

e) Our simulated Johan Santana would've allowed 62.26 fewer runs than that mostly awful procession, giving the 2008 Yankees 665 runs allowed for the season. And a 789-665 run differential produces a Pythagenport record of 95-67, which was precisely the record Boston posted to win the AL wild card.

I still think Cashman made the right call, because, at some point, you have to stop the madness and try to build from within, even if it means missing the playoffs for a year (just as the Red Sox did in 2006). But no longer will I spout the "Santana wouldn't have made a difference, anyway" line, because he obviously would have.

Really, when you look at the fact that Rasner received so many chances and pitched so horribly, it's a wonder how the Yankees pitched so much better, overall, this season than last. The answer? Mike Mussina and the relievers. Mussina went from allowing 90 runs in 152 innings in '07 to 85 runs in 200 1/3 innings in '08. Remarkable. And the Yankees' bullpen ERA went from 4.37 in '07 to 3.79 in '08, according to the Elias Sports Bureau.

Anyhoo, I'm off to Philadelphia for Game 2. Have a great weekend.

So Mike Rose, one of the bigwigs in Newsday's sports department, e-mailed me yesterday and asked if I had LCS predictions.

Here's what I wrote back:

"As I predicted in the blog, Rays in 6 and Dodgers in 7."

Why did I write "Dodgers," when I wrote "Phillies" on the blog? I don't think it was a Freudian slip. I think, because I was writing my Midweek Insider (linked below) on CC Sabathia at the time I wrote back Mike Rose, I had the Dodgers on my mind.

It wasn't until I read the comment by the ever-astute Dennis that I realized my mistake.

So, to reiterate, Phillies and Charlie Manuel in 7, and then I think they'll take the Rays in the World Series.

If all of the regulars here could reach out to 20 people you know who read Newsday the newspaper but not Newsday.com, I'd appreciate it if you could let them know that I'm going with the Phillies, not the Dodgers. Thanks.

Here is my Midweek Insider, which wonders how big, if any, a role the Players Association will play in CC Sabathia's upcoming, monumental decision.

Let's face it, by the time Sabathia chooses his new employer, we're all going to be CC'd out.

For now, I'm predicting that the Dodgers get Sabathia. However, I reserve the right to change my mind until the day full free agency begins, 16 days following the completion of the World Series, at which point I'll post my official forecasts.

From sundown tonight until sundown tomorrow, I'll be off the radar, in honor of Yom Kippur. Happy fasting to all who do so.

Thanks to this site for the photo.

I'm in a hurry this morning, so I'm resorting to a cheap trick: The debate.

I say the Yankees shouldn't sign Mark Teixeira, because they should follow a simple rule: No exorbitant contracts to players they don't know first-hand. And yes, I'd apply the same rule to CC Sabathia, but it's apparent the Yankees disagree with me on that one.

Teixeira will probably very good for a few more years. But will he be very good for eight years? It's easy to say, "As long as he lives up to the money the first few years..." But if you remember Mike Piazza and Bernie Williams in 2005, at the end of their deals, those first few years don't numb the pain at the end.

When you throw in the fact that Jorge Posada might wind up needing to play first base, I'd say there's high incentive for the Yankees not to go to Teixeira.

I'll be back later with the Midweek Insider.

David Lennon has it covered on his blog. Wally Matthews checked in for today's newspaper.

I agree with Wally. No on Manny.

Because run production wasn't the Mets' problem in 2008. They scored 799 runs, tying the Phillies for second place in the NL. And they're bound to get an improvement from their second-base spot, no matter who plays there.

Because Manny turns 37 next May, and because, as prolific a hitter as he is, there have to be diminishing returns at some point.

Because his defense would be more of an issue at spacious Shea Stadium, and because he could DH for, at most, nine games a year.

UPDATE: Whoops! How many times am I going to make that mistake between now and Opening Day? Scratch the Shea thing, but keep the DH thing.

Because, as Wally wrote, he'll likely revert to high-maintenance Manny as soon as he gets his money.

Because, as Dave L. blogged, it would make sense to bring back Pedro Martinez to help keep Manny in line. Pedro is a legend, but to put him in your starting rotation again? Yeesh.

Because I don't think Manny wants to play in New York, anyway. He disliked Boston's intensity more than he liked it.

And I still say yes on K-Rod.

1. The Red Sox are just a ridiculously well-run organization right now. When you combine their baseball operations with their marketing, I'm not sure there's another team that even belongs in the same conversation of "Best team in the entire industry."

On the field, I'm not the first to opine that they remind you of the 1996-01 Yankees: Tremendous pitching, timely hitting and they make very few mistakes. They're resilient, and they capitalize on others' snafus. Hideki Okajima and Justin Masterson let the Angels tie it up in the eighth? No worries. The Angels botched a suicide squeeze; the Sawx benefited from some luck when Reggie Willits dove for Jason Bay's ninth-inning blooper, allowing the ball to bounce into the rightfield stands for a ground-rule double; and they delivered as Jed Lowrie came through with the game-winning RBI.

Look at the key players last night for the Red Sox: Lowrie, Masterson, starting pitcher Jon Lester, winning pitcher Manny Delcarmen. Homegrown, homegrown, homegrown, homegrown. So were three of the first four hitters in Jacoby Ellsbury, Dustin Pedroia and Kevin Youkilis. Red Sox GM Theo Epstein declined to deal players like Ellsbury, Lester, Lowrie and Masterson to Minnesota last winter for Johan Santana; seems like he made the right call.

Bay arrived when the Red Sox recognized they couldn't keep Manny Ramirez and worked diligently to ensure that, in return for paying Manny's way out of town, they'd land an impact player.

I think the Yankees are on the right track. But it has to scare the daylights out of them that both the Red Sox and Tampa Bay possess so much talent and operate so intelligently.

2. Speaking of which, the Angels and Cubs are pretty smart organizations in their own right, and one horrendous, poorly-timed week doesn't change that. Notice that no one is calling for the heads of Angels manager Mike Scioscia or GM Tony Reagins, or Cubs skipper Lou Piniella or GM Jim Hendry.

Why? Because you don't blow up an organization based solely on a horrible ending. The playoffs are awesome. And they're quick, and wacky things happen.

Scioscia might just be the best manager in all of baseball. And he's now 5-15 in playoff games since the Angels won the 2002 World Series. Meanwhile, Joe "Can't manage past the first round" Torre just mopped the floor with Sweet Lou.

The Yankees let Torre go (via their lame, one-year extension a year ago) not because of the playoff results, but because a) Torre's relationship with upper management was toxic; b) Torre's game management skills seemed to be deteriorating from bad to just plan awful; and c) there was a general level of fatigue from both sides. The one-and-done performances from 2005 through 2007 expedited Torre's demise. But they didn't cause it.

So please, let's not call for any huge decisions based on three or four games. Not on the Angels or Cubs, and not on K-Rod.

3. Watching the White Sox last night, they reminded me of the Mets: They fell apart toward the finish line, with their best player going down with an injury and Javier Vazquez turning into Jello.

The difference? Whereas the Brewers capitalized on the Mets' misfortune in the past week, the mighty Twins just didn't have enough left to step on the White Sox's throats. After the Twins swept the White Sox in the regular season's penultimate series, Minnesota lost its next two to meek Kansas City while the White Sox dropped two straight to Cleveland. That allowed the White Sox to retain control over its own destiny, and in the play-in game _ which felt like the title bout in Rocky II, with both contenders ready to collapse from exhautstion _ the White Sox did the minimum, offensively, to win.

Now this White Sox team will go down as a tough bunch that staved off elimination and had nothing left for the playoffs. If the Mets had blown just one less late lead, or if the Brewers hadn't awoken _ and then the Mets went down meekly in the first round _ would we view the Mets through the same prism?

4. The squeeze play. Erick Aybar, an accomplished bunter, couldn't pull it off last night. So now you see why it's such a risk, and why the Mets in no way should have tried it with David Wright in this game.

5. No need to revise my playoff predictions, for once. I'm in shock. I feel like Herb Tarlek must have when Jennifer finally accepted his offer to go out with him in this episode of "WKRP in Cincinnati."

So I'll stick with this:

Rays over Red Sox in 6
Phillies over Dodgers in 7

Have a great day.