Category Archives: Baseball

Mariano Rivera’s Saves Title

As you know by now, Mariano Rivera surpassed Trevor Hoffman as MLB’s all-time saves leader earlier this month. It was a notable feat, to be sure, but in a game that values numbers and milestones so highly, it was a decidedly muted occasion relative to, say, Barry Bonds passing Hank Aaron or Cal Ripken Jr. passing Lou Gehrig. Undoubtedly, that’s partly because the value of the “closer” is still widely debated, and therefore saves are a dubious, if not altogether laughable, stat. But more than that, Mariano earning his 602nd career save did next to nothing to change the way we think about him or how he’ll be remembered — his legacy, as it were.

I say that in sheer reverence, of course. Mariano Rivera was already the greatest closer — certainly since the closer’s role has taken on its current shape, and probably ever — and everyone knew that. He would have been the greatest closer with or without this distinction, the way Ted Williams is the best hitter despite not hitting the most homers or owning the highest batting average. Just to be clear, there are plenty of stats to support Mo as the greatest closer, if we wanted to take it there. We could fall back on his 38.6 career WAR, for example, which is roughly nine more wins above replacement (in 287 fewer innings) than the next closest reliever, Goose Gossage.

But the point is, we don’t need to refer to those numbers.

When I think about Rivera’s greatness, about boiling it down to something simple and human, I’m reminded of a tweet I read a year or so ago. I can’t remember whose tweet it was, so if you read this piece and want to lay claim to it, by all means. The person tweeted something like: “There is no greater comfort in fandom than having Rivera take the mound in the ninth inning.” I’m pretty sure time and my mutable memory have conspired to tweak that a bit, but nevertheless that line summarizes Mariano Rivera’s greatness more than 603 career regular-season saves, 42 postseason saves, ~40 WAR, 2.76 FIP, that hellacious cutter or whatever other measure you want to use.

When Mariano Rivera enters a game to close it out, he instills in everyone — his team, manager(s), fans and, yes, his fantasy owners — a sort of confidence that the subsequent three outs are all but a formality. Of course, Mo has had his down moments. Game 7 of the 2001 World Series is the most obvious. Game 4 of the 2004 ALCS isn’t far behind. The Matt Franco Game is a personal favorite of this Mets fan. But what he has done is survive the inevitable losing battle against the law of averages and forge ahead with his own confidence, and everyone else’s trust in him, intact. It didn’t matter that he wasn’t always perfect; no one is, after all. It only mattered that we expected him to be perfect, and thought him fully capable of achieving that, every time out.

And that, for practical purposes, is really the thing that separates Mo from the other great relievers, of which there have been so many. No matter the pitcher, year, team and situation, all stoppers, however brilliant their respective stretches, gave their fans that momentary pause when they entered the game, that maybe this would be the day that they just didn’t quite have it. Maybe Hoffman’s changeup wouldn’t be quite as deceptive. Maybe Nen’s slider wouldn’t fall off the table. Maybe Wagner’s speeding bullet would be a little bit easier to square up.

No one ever thought that about No. 42 and whether his patented cutter would bite. And on the days when it was catching too much plate, and some team managed to escape certain defeat, no one questioned whether he’d be back to normal next time out. And that’s the indefinable thing that renders the saves crown redundant, if not irrelevant. The number — 603 and counting — tells us what we already knew.

Reflecting on Griffey, a 16-Bit Console Hero

Note: I published this several months back at a now-defunct blog, so I’ve imported it here for the sake of preserving a decent piece.

Throughout my early adolescence, I spent countless summer days whipping my cousin Pete in Ken Griffey Jr. Presents Major League Baseball for Super Nintendo.

With bathing suits wet, fingers pruned and eyes red from the swimming pool’s chlorine, we’d shuffle into a corner of my bedroom and fix our attention to the tiny 13-inch tube television on which our epic battles would unfold.

Fittingly, Griffey’s was the only real name used in the game. Its developers didn’t acquire the licensing rights from the MLB Players Association to use other players’ names, so everyone but Griffey had a fictitious, often silly title. Intentions notwithstanding, the effect was all the same: Griffey was baseball’s — and the video game’s — biggest star.

He was baseball’s final pre-Internet icon, a player who was as cool as he was gifted. With Griffey’s ridiculous hype and marvelous performance, Mariners fans — showing their solidarity with teal-green caps worn backward — were suddenly cropping up across the country.

Buried beneath the rubble of Armando Galarraga’s imperfect game on June 2 was the news of Griffey’s retirement, not a where-were-you moment but perhaps a take-a-step-back moment for a generation of fans.

For all Griffey’s greatness and popularity, the anticlimactic ending seemed fitting for a career marred in its second half by injuries and overshadowed by the homer happiness of the steroids era (the strike of 1994-95 did him no favors, either). The final 10 or so seasons were nearly as unremarkable as the first 10 were celebrated.

Baseball tragedies are often mistakenly compared to their real-life counterparts, and Griffey’s fate is hardly that. He made millions, foolishly forced his way out of a city in which he was nothing short of a god, and frequently was his own worst enemy due to his aloofness and hypersensitivity. All this considered, Junior’s still a surefire Hall of Famer, headed for Cooperstown on on the first ballot barring a PED revelation.

But there is a palpable somberness — morbidity, even — among those who followed baseball closely or worshiped Griffey or played his quaint 16-bit video game, because despite 630 career homers and 10 Gold Gloves at a premium defensive position, we are left with the dull nag of what could have been for a transcendent talent.

It speaks to something larger about us as devourers of baseball, that despite the increased emphasis on stats over the past decade, we still relish stories and memories, and Griffey left us short on both when he promised so many.

Perhaps the feeling is simply indicative of an affection unique to a particular generation of fans, one that some may not understand if they didn’t grow up watching the early SportsCenter before hopping on the school bus (because that was the only way to watch Griffey highlights). More likely, though, it’s rooted in the realization that Griffey’s retirement was the long-overdue death knell for a zeitgeist that met its end in 1998, when Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa, and later Barry Bonds, rendered Griffey all but an afterthought.

Griffey’s career spanned parts of 22 seasons, peaking three Nintendo consoles ago, to be exact, and it’s sadly and humorously fitting that for a guy who couldn’t keep up with the game — a bit by his own doing, a bit not — the last story of intrigue he provided was an in-game nap.

My neurotic bitterness: A meditation on why I need the Yanks to win Game 5 of the ALCS so I can continue rooting for them to lose in miserable fashion

A.J. Burnett

A.J. Burnett's angst is iconic -- for a Yankees hater like yours truly (Jim McIsaac/Getty Images).

He had never been jealous of me for a second. Now I knew that there never was and never could have been any rivalry between us. I was not of the same quality as he. I couldn’t stand this. … Holding firmly to the trunk, I took a step toward him, and then my knees bent and I jounced the limb. Finny, his balance gone, swung his head around to look at me for an instant with extreme interest, and then he tumbled sideways, broke through the little branches below and hit the bank with a sickening, unnatural thud. It was the first clumsy physical action I had ever seen him make. With unthinking sureness I moved out on the limb and jumped into the river, every trace of my fear of this forgotten.
Excerpt from A Separate Peace, by John Knowles.

These occasions are a precious few, my fellow Yankees haters.

The Bombers are, well, being bombed by the Texas Rangers and now face elimination from the postseason by virtue of a 3-1 ALCS deficit. And what makes this especially sweet is the manner in which the Yanks have crashed and burned — or shall we say crashed and Burnetted after Tuesday night’s deflating defeat?

But as a fully indoctrinated self-loathing Mets fan and devout Yankees hater, I must offer this mea culpa: The Yankees’ impending defeat (famous last words) is bittersweet in a way you can’t fully understand unless you’ve consigned yourself to a lifetime of jealousy and bitterness (i.e. Mets fandom). Because, although I’m not shedding any tears for the suddenly bumbling Bombers, their sloppy play may well hasten their exit, and with it any especially strong rooting interest for me in these playoffs.

Oliver Perez

You'd be bitter, too, if Oliver Perez were on your team (Nick Laham/Getty Images).

Which is to say, I need the Yankees to win so I can keep rooting against them, and frankly, that’s a sad indictment of what it means to be a Mets fan in 2010.

But here I am, and if I may appropriate a tried-and-true Sports Guy analogy, my rooting against these vile Yankees has become creepily similar to a dysfunctional relationship: I know it’s utterly unhealthy and unproductive, but I can’t walk away from it. I want nothing more than to see these Yanks flail — for their fans to be embarrassed the way I have been so frequently during the course of an average 162-game Mets season — and yet, when I imagine the emptiness and dissatisfaction I’ll feel should the Rangers put them out of their misery, I retreat. I bargain. I make up so that I can wallow in another day of poisonous vitriol.

I know. It’s twisted.

The missteps in this ALCS have been so bountiful that I’ve actually felt twinges of sympathy for the Yankees at times, a sure sign of the apocalypse. If you’re a Yankees fan, I know the last thing you want right now from the perverse logic of a Mets fan is sympathy, but here I am.

Bengie Molina

It's one thing to be beaten by a bad player. It's an entirely different matter to be beaten by a fat, bad player (Jim McIsaac/Getty Images).

When the Bombers held a 3-2 lead briefly on Tuesday in Game 4, I had that creeping suspicion that it wasn’t going to last. I don’t know, maybe that’s on account of having endured one blown lead after another over the years with the Mets. Sure enough, A.J. Burnett again reminded us of why he’s quickly become the Yanks’ Oliver Perez, coughing up a gopher ball to the pesky Bengie Molina. I swear, Molina is not a good player by any stretch of the imagination, but he somehow manages to convince people otherwise with well-timed hits. I assure you, good reader, those are the only hits Molina ever gets.

Joe Girardi, bless his heart, is looking quite the hapless hangdog these days. Recall, if you will, that Willie Randolph had that disposition frequently during his tenure with the Mets. Anyway, Girardi compounded the mistake of allowing Burnett to pitch the sixth inning by intentionally walking David Murphy in front of Molina. With Burnett’s penchant for implosion, it was a matter of playing with fire, and unfortunately for the Yanks and Girardi, they got burned.

Girardi, by the way, just looks tired. I know that he’s dealing with the pressures of working on the final year of his contract, not to mention his dad’s ever-looming illness, but the golden touch he had a year ago seems to have evaporated. The pie-chart guy for whom everything went so swimmingly en route to the 2009 World Series title seemingly outwitted himself on Tuesday night.

Mark Teixeira

This was a familiar sight for Mets fans in recent years (Jim McIsaac/Getty Images).

And then, the kicker: Mark Teixeira’s hamstring injury. Now, mind you, for all my Yankees hatred, I don’t root for anyone to get injured. There’s a fine line between passionate, healthy hatred and sadism, one that I’m proud to tell you that I respect. That said, sometimes it’s your time, and sometimes it’s just not. So when Teixeira went down and the already bleak prospect of a Yankees series comeback became even unlikelier, I certainly didn’t mind. I mean, it’s just a hamstring strain, right? He’ll be back in prime shape for spring training!

The Yankees face elimination in Game 5 this afternoon. Shall I root for them to clean out their lockers today? Perhaps it would be more painful for their fans if the series were extended to a sixth game? Then again, there’s always Cliff Lee looming in a potential Game 7.

About: The transient Cliff Lee and his unlikely journey from the Minors to baseball’s best pitcher in three years

Cliff Lee

Cliff Lee allowed two earned runs in 16 innings against the Rays in the ALDS, fanning 21 and walking none (Chris O'Meara/AP).

Four teams are left standing in 2010, each boasting an unseemly complement of pitching studs.

Somehow, stacked against the likes of CC and The Freak and Doc and Hamels and Oswalt and Cain and Sanchez, Cliff Lee manages to stand alone, and it’s really not even close.

On account of Lee’s sheer brilliance, his impending free agency and his Rangers’ unprecedented now-deep run into the postseason, the easy-throwing southpaw is the toast of the baseball world, eclipsing even Roy Halladay and Tim Lincecum. All they’ve done is toss the second no-hitter in postseason history and a 14-strikeout shutout, respectively.

Incredibly, Lee’s ascent has been as circuitous as it has been protracted.

For a while, it looked like he’d be the least celebrated of the relevant players whom the Indians acquired from the Expos in 2002 in exchange for Bartolo Colon. Grady Sizemore was a star almost instantly upon arrival in the bigs, and Brandon Phillips came into his own once he was given a clean slate in Cincinnati.

Lee, though, was something else. His upside was always sort of there, but the results were uneven. After cups of coffee in 2002-03, the southpaw was rather mediocre in his first three full seasons in Cleveland in 2004-06 (4.50 ERA, 97 ERA+ in 98 starts).

Then, 2007 happened. Lee was any combination of injured, ineffective and controversial. His season false started on an injured groin in Spring Training. He was bad upon returning. Worse still, he took on fans who booed him and engaged in a clubhouse tiff with catcher Victor Martinez. Lee was demoted to the Minors for a stretch and was utterly invisible during the Indians’ run to the ALCS. That’s right — Lee was in the Minor Leagues as recently three seasons ago, at age 29. He should have been what he is now. He should have been in the prime of his career.

In 2008, a new Lee was born, as it were. Suddenly, everything seemed to click for him. The guy knifed through lineups effortlessly. He began striking out more batters, walking fewer, and was notably stingy with respect to allowing homers. His ERA+ jumped to 168, which was light years ahead of his next-closest single-season ERA+ of 111 (2005). A guy whose career may have been on the ropes just a season earlier — a guy who was demoted to the Minors — was named the American League Cy Young Award winner.

Even then, in 2008, folks began to wonder: When does this Lee hit the open market? And these thoughts crept in for good reason. That was Lee’s age-30 season, his fifth full campaign in the bigs, which doesn’t even take into account his brief stints in 2002 and ’03. For crying out loud: The guy was drafted by the Expos. How many of those were still kicking around in 2008, let alone now?

Now, Lee’s protracted march toward free agency is nearing its conclusion. After two additional seasons in which Lee proved 2008 was hardly a fluke, he’s on the cusp of a monstrous payday. The wait has been whittled down to perhaps as few as a precious start or two, depending upon how his Rangers fare against the Yankees in the ALCS. That his last stand prior to his date with the open market may be made against the Bronx Bombers is no small irony. It’s long been assumed that the Yanks will commence a dogged pursuit of the left-hander in the offseason.

Lee is so highly regarded by the Yankees, in fact, that they essentially had a deal in place with the Mariners to acquire him this season. Seattle pulled out at the last minute and instead chose to send Lee to Texas, but it wasn’t for lack of trying by the Bombers. They offered prized catching prospect Jesus Montero to the M’s, and Yanks general manager Brian Cashman is not one to flippantly shop around his blue-chip farmhands.

If Lee should be wooed to the Yankees (or anyone other than the Indians, Phillies, Mariners or Rangers) this offseason, it would become his fifth team in the past three seasons. That’s a lot for a pitcher of Lee’s ilk. Guys like this aren’t supposed to bounce around the league. Their teams are supposed to lock them in to long-term deals, post haste.

This transience, I suspect, plays no small role in Lee’s recently discovered perch atop the pitching pantheon. Each time we watch him pitch — each time we watch him dominate even the best teams, as he did the Rays twice in the ALDS — we are enticed by the lure of wondering where he’ll pitch next, with the (albeit dim) optimism that he could be on our respective team’s in 2011.

I’ve wondered: The Mets could make a run at this guy in the offseason, right? Of course, I know this to be highly unlikely. But the intrigue is there.

For the Bronx Bombers, that lure is very real, as they’ll almost certainly factor heavily into the Lee sweepstakes this offseason. But for now, they must contend with him, try to beat him, and that has not proven easy for them (or anyone else, for that matter). Rare and celebrated is the pitcher who has stared down the mighty Yankees on the game’s biggest stage and given them fits, but Lee is among them.

Joining the ranks of noted postseason Yankee killers Curt Schilling and Randy Johnson (2001) and Josh Beckett (2003), Lee manacled the Bombers in last season’s World Series for the Phillies, earning wins in each of his two starts and posting a 2.81 ERA. It wasn’t just that Lee beat the Yankees twice, it was also how he did it. He exuded nonchalance in a spot where so many others before him have wilted, going so far as to have the audacity to cavalierly field a comebacker behind his back. On a play of a similar tone, he could barely be bothered to cleanly field a dying quail back to the mound, nearly allowing it to pop out of his glove.

And that’s part of the draw here with Lee, too: Aside from his tangible brilliance, he owns a certain Je ne sais quoi. For all of the effortless coolness, he jogs off the mound hurriedly at the end of each inning, as if to say he can’t wait for his team to bat then get back out there for his next half-inning. It’s a boyish affectation, certainly, equal parts charming and curious. A guy this good shouldn’t move quickly for anyone, like Paulie in Goodfellas. But he does.

And now, having already taken baseball by storm and with a fat paycheck awaiting him at season’s end, he’ll again try to take down the Yankees, the team for which he may very well pitch in 2011. The contract, regardless of which team gives it to him, will bring closure to a winding journey to supremacy among the ranks of the game’s best pitchers.

Wherein I go all contrarian and argue against replay in baseball

 

Joe Maddon

Can we have fewer of these run-ins without expanded video review? I think so (J. Meric/Getty Images).

Here’s a couple of career stats from the mighty Albert Pujols:

In 1-2 counts: .255/.261/.435

In 2-1 counts: .382/.389/.682

Startling as the contrast may be, it sort of makes sense, right? This is the nature of the ongoing struggle between pitchers and batters for that elusive advantage during the course of an at-bat. It’s the proverbial game within the game, and I suspect (though I haven’t yet proven) that it’s what delineates baseball fans from non-baseball fans. You either love this or you don’t — what the pitcher’s going to throw vs. how the hitter will approach it.

But even I’ll admit, I didn’t know the difference between a 1-2 count and a 2-1 count — i.e. one pitch — could be as stark as a .696 and a 1.071 OPS. That’s night and day. That’s the difference between Omar Vizquel’s approximate career OPS and Lou Gehrig’s. No offense to Vizquel, of course, as he’s a borderline Hall of Famer. But should he get there, it won’t be on account of his offensive prowess, as we all know. Taking it a step further, a call or non-call on 2-2 is the difference between a strikeout and a full count. You get the idea.

And this is why, to me, video review has no place in baseball beyond its current role, which is to award or take away disputed (non) home run calls. A single pitch can effectively amount to an out. It can be the difference in prowess between a slap-hitting middle infielder and the Iron Horse. And so long as no one wants balls and strikes called by a machine — and by all accounts, no one does — then the rest of the game, too, should be presided over by living, breathing umpires, without those anticlimactic interruptions on account of going to the videotape. Because to arbitrarily decide what is reviewable and what is not based on convenience or ignorance would be a gross disservice to one of the overarching themes of advanced analysis, which is that no part of a game is too small to examine, down to each pitch.

It just doesn’t make sense to say, “We have to live with human fallibility for balls and strikes but not for in-play calls.”

Of course, the video-review debate has been ongoing for a few seasons now, but it always seems to reach a fever pitch this time of year, during the postseason, when the stakes are highest. That’s understandable. Everyone’s watching, and everyone — Major League Baseball, the teams and fans — wants the calls to be made accurately. Right now, that’s not happening, unfortunately: Michael Young’s check swing, Greg Golson’s non-catch and Buster Posey’s stolen base were all majorly important plays in their respective games.

What’s the solution? Well, I, for one, have faith in mankind.  We did, after all, figure out how to split the atom. Can we not put our heads together and address the issue of umpiring without drastically altering the rules, pace and flow of a game? With a few minor adjustments, we might be able to take care a lot of these blown calls.

First, what’s the harm in putting more umpires on the field? When the U.S. Open was being played a few weeks back, I remember watching it and thinking there were an inordinate number of officials on the court. They’re entirely different sports, I know, but why not do that in baseball? In fact, during the postseason, there are extra umps on the field — down the lines. Let’s keep them there in the regular season so that they become better accustomed to the nuances of the positions. Also, let’s put one umpire in each outfield alley. The thinking is, with more umpires on the field, there will be fewer places where an ump is going to be left to make a call on a play he could not see closely or clearly.

But, by my own admission, the problem is often not that the umpires are removed from the play or can’t see it clearly. Many times, in fact, they simply blow the call, flat out, which was the case with Golson’s trap and Posey’s steal. But if these calls are so obviously blown to the casual observer without even the aid of instant replay, shouldn’t they be the easiest to fix? This is when the umpires need to pool that indomitable human resourcefulness and come up with the right answer, collectively. Why aren’t they doing that already, you ask? Well, sometimes I do believe that they simply can’t get the call right, regardless of how many of them confer or for how long. Some plays are darn near impossible to call even with the aid of replay. But too frequently, the call is not rectified or even considered to be rectified on account of that unseemly hubris we’ve seen cropping up in recent years. And that, to me, is what’s inexcusable.

Did you wonder whether the other umpires on the field at Comerica Park in June saw what the rest of us did — that Jim Joyce cost Armando Galarraga a perfect game with a horribly blown call at first base? I did. But no one spoke up. There was no conference among the umpires, let alone an overrule or call reversal or whatever you want to call it. And that rarely happens because umpires have a bizarre sense of misguided pride, to the extent that it usually becomes a higher priority than actually getting the call right. They can’t be shown up. I’m sorry, but if I were so concerned about my pride, I’d do anything within my power to get the call right. Then, I couldn’t be shown up; I’d be lauded for putting the game’s integrity over my own pride.

For MLB’s part, maybe it ought to begin approaching this more proactively. Commission committees. Conduct studies and interviews. Surely, some umpires are better at calling balls and strikes while others are better on the bases; talk to them about why they think these blown calls are occurring. Ask them what could be done to curtail it. One question I’d want to ask them is, do they feel appropriately trained and well prepared? Obviously, there are more variables here than I could possibly enumerate. But the point is: be proactive. Don’t allow this to run amok on the game the way steroids did.

I think, with a little thought and effort, baseball can have the best of both worlds: fewer blown calls and no review-related delays, resulting in the game’s officiating integrity being restored. And really, that’s all anyone wants.

Phillies’ incomparable Halladay upstages game on its biggest stage

Doc

Roy Halladay spun a 104-pitch no-hitter, walking only one (Matt Rourke).

I can’t offer you some obscure stat about Roy Halladay because I don’t have any that are my own. There’s nothing to discuss about his Hall of Fame candidacy — he was all but a lock before Wednesday, barring unforeseen injury or precipitous decline.

All that I can share with you regarding Halladay’s postseason no-hitter is admiration — unmitigated awe, really — and the suggestion that this is something truly extraordinary (which you already knew). Not because of improbability or painstakingly obscure minutiae (the kind we baseball nerds normally revel in) but because for a solitary day, an individual trumped the final scores of three games during the time of the year when those are all that’s supposed to matter.

Yes, the Rangers and Phillies and Yankees won, greatly improving their respective odds of moving onto the League Championship Series, but all of that was merely an afterthought on Doc’s Day.

Halladay’s postseason no-hitter was a rare feat, to be sure, only the second in MLB history (and the first since Don Larsen’s perfect game in 1956). It was an elite hurler pitching at his highest level on the game’s biggest stage. But it was more than all of that, really, because of who Halladay is and how he pitches and how we watch him.

Yes, I’ve seen other dominant pitchers, some of whom were simply better than Doc.

Randy Johnson, for one, was seething fury. He was the gangly southpaw who seemed to be two steps from the plate by the time his whizzing fastball was finally released from his wiry fingers.

Pedro Martinez, another, was pint-sized but unleashed boring heaters and kneebuckling curveballs until he made you look silly with a diving changeup. His repertoire was an embarrassment of riches. He was the new Sandy Koufax.

In contemporary terms, Tim Lincecum, the diminutive whirling dervish, reminds me of Pedro, and Johan Santana has that ridiculous changeup, although he looks to be beyond his peak now.

Doc is some of those things, but he’s none of them, exactly. He’s a workman, approaching each pitch with the exactness of an engineer. He repeats his delivery uncannily. He can’t sacrifice his command to blow a 99-mph fastball by you. He cuts and sinks everything. There’s hardly a discernible difference between the speeds or trajectories of his pitches to the naked eye, save for the occasional loopy breaker. He’s stoic and composed, but he allows himself a self-reprimand every so often.

He’s the perfect intersection of raw talent and intelligence and durability and determination. He’s baseball’s Roger Federer.

And to watch Doc pitch is to understand that baseball, for all the trite teamwork cliches we’re taught in Little League, is truly an individual game insofar as there are those few rare players who can leave their stamps on a game with both their performance and unrefined will. He treats each batter as if it were the last he’ll face. He concedes nothing to anyone. He’s as singularly focused a player as I’ve ever seen, which, admittedly, would mean little if he weren’t of otherworldly ability. But he is. And that’s why he’s so easy to root for.

When someone like this comes along and plies his trade where it’s visible to even the most casual fans, we have no choice but to laud it. It’s not about the Phillies or Rangers or Yankees or whoever after an accomplishment of this magnitude. OK, I’ll allow for Reds fans to ignore the big picture just this one time. But otherwise, this is about sheer captivation.

In the wake of Halladay’s outing, I was talking to my friend Esoteric, scribe over at sportsangle.com. He summed up Halladay’s universal appeal quite nicely.

“I absolutely love the guy, and I’m a Mets fan.”

This was truly a transcendent performance, an artistic masterpiece. Offensive feats bear an entirely different timbre. A hitter has only a precious few at-bats per game in which to hit a milestone home run, for example. A pitching outing like Halladay’s, though, is protracted. It has a grand rhythm, and within that, there are smaller ones — between each pitch, batter and inning. With each of those that passes without that ever-looming first hit, the tension mounts and the unlikely becomes increasingly within reach.

The no-hitter, in and of itself, isn’t such a rare feat. There’s been 266 of them in baseball history (OK, that’s one stat). Modern analysis tells us that the perfect storm of circumstances can conspire to immortalize some underwhelming pitcher on any given night, guys like Dallas Braden and (almost) Armando Galarraga.

But a no-hitter can’t make those guys anything more than the answer to a midseason trivia question on a local network. What a no-no can do, though, is make a star like Doc that much better, that much more heralded and celebrated. We don’t have to look at this one skeptically. We don’t have to (erroneously) chalk it up to the decline of steroids or the reemergence of big ballparks or the rediscovered emphasis on team defense. We already knew how great Halladay was before Wednesday, and that’s what’s extra special about this.

The guy is just a really, really good pitcher.

It was the fitting supplement to Doc’s perfecto in May. Yes, he threw a perfect game and a postseason no-hitter in the same year. Not bad, eh? But the perfecto, that was an entirely different epic. It took place in Florida, in the season’s second month. A few people watched, sure, and everyone heard about it after the fact, but it may as well have taken place in … well, there’s not really a better example of Baseball Siberia than Florida.

On that day, Halladay became immortal, but on Wednesday he somehow managed to become bigger than baseball’s biggest games. And for that, he stands alone.

Bobby Cox’s retirement and the cult of the 1991 World Series

Bobby Cox’s impending retirement is not the foremost concern for the Braves right now, nor should it be. They’ve squandered an NL East title and are in the throws of a heated chase to salvage the Wild Card. However, the time to take a step back and consider the entirety of Cox’s illustrious career is nigh, whether it be at the conclusion of the regular season or at some indeterminate point during or after the playoffs, should the Braves make it. That’s their conundrum, though, and as a Mets fan and healthily devout Braves hater, I’ll cop to hoping it arrives sooner than later.

For all Cox’s accomplishments — and it would kill me to enumerate them, considering so many have come at the Mets’ expense — his retirement is simply astonishing to me because it’s a reminder that his tenure with the Braves (actually his second) has literally spanned the entirety of my baseball fandom. What’s more, and I suspect this is a dirty secret of many a Mets fan around my age, Bobby Cox and his 1991 Braves captivated me, then an eight-year-old boy enjoying baseball autonomously and by my own volition for the first time in my life. I no longer had to be pacified with ice cream bars on the occasions my dad brought us all to Shea Stadium, nor did I whine my way out of the ballpark in the sixth inning.

Quite simply, my lifelong devouring of baseball began with Cox and those Braves, and they were the perfect single-season captors for my imagination. Though I loved them just the same, the Mets weren’t much of a consideration. They were bad that season, atrophy having fully eroded the vestiges of the mid- and late-80s juggernauts. Division realignment was still a few years off, meaning the Braves resided in the old NL West and were of little threat to the Amazin’s, anyway. Plus, their games were aired nationally TBS, so I could watch all of them.

The Braves were young and exciting, a worst-to-first revelation. I watched as many of their games as I could (as school and bedtime would allow), scanning Newsday‘s box scores the next day for whatever I missed and to have a look at the standings, which would be up to date if the Dodgers game out West had ended early enough. It was easy to pull against the Braves’ chief rival that season, the Dodgers, as they had poached Darryl Strawberry from my Mets the preceding offseason.

Of course, there was no lack of drama with those Braves. If ever there was a team built to make someone a lifelong fan of the game, this was it. They won the NL West by one game (foreshadowing what would later be known as the last great division race of 1993) over the Dodgers. They beat the Pirates (1992 would be Pittsburgh’s final foray into relevance) in a positively thrilling and often overlooked seven-game NLCS, portending what would unfold in the Fall Classic.

That 1991 World Series was, in the purest and most romantic sense, truly a fall classic, the 1975 World Series for a new generation. Even at the age of 8, I knew then that I was watching something special, something that everyone else was watching as intently as I was, something that everyone would remember forever, as I would.

I wasn’t merely enjoying great baseball, the game being played at its highest level (although that was certainly the case), but I was actually learning it. Each tilt was so tense and seemed to be so tightly contested that they held in them small baseball wonders previously unbeknownst to me. When Kent Hrbek lifted Ron Gant off of first base, effectively picking him off, I was enraged. How could he get away with that? When Kirby Puckett crashed against the MetroDome’s Plexiglass wall to rob Gant of a sure extra-base hit later in the series, I couldn’t believe what I had seen. Could a man of that stature really look so agile and jump so high? Why did Charlie Leibrandt awkwardly jerk his soft-tossing left arm behind his back during his windup? Why did Lonnie Smith look so pissed off all the time? Why did Terry Pendleton wear a batting helmet with ear flaps on both sides of it?

The wonder — the sheer amazement — never seemed to subside, as corny as it may sound now. When Puckett slugged his walk-off homer in Game 6, I thought all game-ending calls would be this good:

“And we’ll see you tomorrow night!” — Jack Buck

Yes, Jack, we will see you tomorrow night.

Game 7 was ulcer-inducing. Jack Morris and John Smoltz were brilliant. The game went to 10 innings. Wouldn’t the Twins cave at some point? Couldn’t they just give in and let the Braves realize their destiny? No, they couldn’t. The Braves lost by the narrowest of margins.

The series was played so closely that it may as well have ended it in a draw. It was, as detailed by ESPN’s Jim Caple in 2003, perhaps the greatest World Series ever played. Three games went to extra frames. Three ended with walk-offs. Five of the seven games were decided by a solitary run. I knew then that this series was great, but this great?

There’s a compulsion among baseball fans to delineate things tidily. We remember things by stretches — of our teams’ good and bad play, of player dominance. There are eras, too — Dead Ball, Steroid, Money Ball. Cox was on the Braves’ bench for so long that he actually transcends any fad or era or movement. He not only survived but actually thrived while a handful of those things came and went (having three Hall of Famer pitchers to anchor your rotation for a decade certainly doesn’t hurt toward that end).

That he’s the final active prominent figure from the seminal 1991 World Series says a lot about Cox’s impressive resume, but really, it serves to give pause to a generation of fans who became hooked on the game on account of the greatest Fall Classic ever played.