Dr. Strangelove it is!

You're better off. Strangelove is a terrific film; Casablanca is way overrated.

The votes are in: the National League needs to change something. If the Rockies (whom all Phillies fans adore because of the loser's syllogism) manage to do the unthinkable and beat the Sox, they will prevent the NL from losing 2/3 of the last 23 World Series (and prevent a 70% run for the AL in the past 10 years). Granted that won't happen, but the more important point is when is the NL is going to realize that the real advantage the DH brings is that it makes AL pitchers better because they have to face 9 hitters instead of 8.
You can go Eskin-style and rap all day about the double switch, but the real issue is that there is a statistically-significant problem in MLB: the AL wins 2 Series for every one the NL wins. The "purists" out there wish both leagues brought the pitcher to bat, but in today's NL game, the pitcher is nothing more than an automatic out. Doesn't take a genius to manage his way around that.
Whine all you want, but in every other city in America other than Philly, winning counts more than barstool ruminating. Just ask the Yankees. Or the Sox.

I do agree that it's time for the NL to embrace the DH. Not only are your reasons valid, BMT, but it lengthens careers and makes the game more exciting. Paul Molitor, Hall of Famer, would DH quite a bit at the tail end of his career, even for the World Series-winning Toronto Blue Jays. Frank Thomas was able to kind of make a return because of this. Players like Edgar Martinez and David Ortiz might have never been known without it. It sometimes makes the World Series more exciting (like playing Ortiz at 3rd or putting a big bench player on the DH spot), but overall it puts the NL at a disadvantage.

BMT,
Your assessment of the effects of the DH aren't pure and seem a bit disingenous. An honest look at the affects of the DH would go back to its inception in 1973, not just to a year the American League started a run of World Series wins. Since and including 1973, the first year of the DH, the American League has 19 wins and 14 losses; nice, but not close to two out of three. Interestingly, during the 33 years previous to the DH, the American League had 18 wins and 15 losses. There is no way an improvement of one or two wins over several decades can be attributed to the implementation of a gimmick like the DH. I believe the biggest difference between this year's World Series teams is their payrolls, not the use of a DH. Sometimes Goliath wins.
JohnniE

If Dr. Strangelove inspires you to embark on a Kubrick marathon may I heartily recommend Barry Lyndon. Yes it's long. Yes it's slow. But if you're ready for that going in it's so damn good. The type of film very few directors can pull off.

Settle down BMT. This Boston win will only make the AL 4-3 in the last 7. And the Giants really shoulda won that 2002 series. I'm shocked that Garrett is a DH fan. To me, the excitement of baseball comes from the strategy involved. Of course, strategy is only found in the NL, since the AL manager makes about as many decisions during a game as I do. For all you fans of the DH, I recommend the NBA. Lots of scoring and no strategy. You'll love it.

This obsession with the strategy issue in the NL vs. the AL is way overblown. Why should I accept the senseless idea that National League managers are strategic geniuses because they only have to manage 8 opposing hitters? Somehow American League managers are warm bodies in the dugout who don't do anything because their staffs face a full 9-batter lineup each night. It's nonsense. Ask Terry Francona about managing. He's certainly had to make loads of personnel and pitching decisions, and most of them have paid off (He is 7-0 in World Series but I guess he has no strategic acumen).
The argument that AL management is inferior is rubbish. It's a desperate grab by NL dinosaurs who can't get used to the fact their clubs are inferior and so they cling to Luddite thinking. Guess what, guys, you've won 3 of the last 10.

Oh, one more thing. JGT knows full well how much disdain I have for the NBA, largely because of it's premium on scoring and scoring only (what are you, a soccer fan now?). Last time I looked, the combined total of the NL runs-scored leaders (Philly and Colorado) was only 83 runs fewer than that of their AL counterparts (Boston and NY). That's at .12 run differential per game. So the top run scorers pretty much dead even league-to-league. Furthermore, AL teams scored an average of 4.9 runs per regular season game this season. NL teams scored 4.71. It's not like the AL is hitting that much better, it's that they're winning 2 WS for every 1 the NL wins in the past quarter century.

Yeah, Francona is a real genius. Look at how succesful he was in the NL without the 2nd highest payroll in baseball. And keep in mind that until 2004 your beloved Sox had never done jackshit, with or without the DH. Their Series domination has a lot more to do with recent good ownership and a smart GM who has an eye for good players and all the money he wants to go after them than it does with the DH. And the Phillies failures have more to do with owners who don't care about baseball than it does with their pitchers' batting averages. The AL can keep the DH. I really don't care, because I really don't care about the AL. But if they ever add that boring ass rule to the NL, I'll never watch baseball again.

You're right, Francona sucked here and certainly has benefitted from having a stellar team with which to work. That goes more to the age-old issue of judging a player/coach by how good or bad his cast is. Did Montana suck because he played with multiple HOFers on his offense? Tough ever to answer that question. If you don't like Francona then you can compliment every other member of the organization while leaving him off the list--it becomes an issue of whom to credit for a team's success. In the Red Sox case I'll take that problem over the ones the Phillies have.

I guess I don't understand the AL hating. Is the DH question the only thing that matters to you about baseball? You've already made clear that you believe a manager's only concern is how to manage the pitcher's spot in the lineup. That seems a little myopic but your tastes are yours.

The issue is what kind of team/league you want to support. I'm glad my squad is willing to win. Like them or not, the Red Sox decided to commit to winning a few years back and they have. Instead of looking down on that, you should expect the same from your team. But Philly fans never do because they'd rather bitch and complain than demand competence from the teams they pay to support. Hey, Boston's not as big as many NL markets but they've figured something out. Here's to hoping the Phillies decide to focus on winning--that would give me goosebumps.

Shocked at my DH preference? I am primarily an AL fan, so maybe that has something to do with it. I've always found the strict divide on the DH issue between NL and AL fans interesting.

If having to strategize when to pull a pitcher for a pinch hitter is an advantage in NL managing, it's not a strong one. During the World Series and interleague play, most AL managers have been able to put two-and-two together and do the switch effectively. I love baseball strategy and have always found games between AL and NL teams very engaging due to confronting the rule change, but I will say I like the DH better, and for many reasons.

1) It makes for better baseball lineups. You don't have an automatic out on the bottom, and teams still have to search for the right slugger to contribute in that way. How many times have you Phils fans got all excited about a rally, only to give up on it before the pitcher takes his first swing of the bat with two outs to cope with?

2) As I have mentioned already, it lengthens careers. I'm not so inclined to say that players like Frank Thomas should just go ahead and retire because they can't contribute defensively or full-time anymore. The 90's Yanks built their dynasty partly on the backs of Fielder, Straw, Chili, etc.; guys who were pretty well past their prime but could help off of the bench.

3) It doesn't put pitchers at risk. There is so much that can go wrong for a pitcher that could ruin his career, more so than most positions. I'd rather not see my ace pretending he can get a home run and pretending he can steal second base.

4) It makes for better roster management. My favorite example of this is the tied All-Star game from some years back. By only putting one or more of your pitchers in for a half-inning, then a pinch hitter, then another pitcher, and so on, you risk burning out your bullpen faster. So many teams (like the Phils, for example) make mistakes in how they handle their bullpen as it is, and this just makes it worse.

5) What about your franchise players? Guys like Barry Bonds, where the ability to field everyday deteriorates, have to go elsewhere in order to keep playing. That's a shame for the home crowd where they want to see one of their favorite players stay and contribute still but can't.

6) Again, the difference in strategy is so miniscule. It's one thing when AL and NL teams play each other, but otherwise not so much. It's like saying that teams that put the shift in play when someone like Jason Giambi comes to town is a superior strategy. It's just a common sense reaction.

Somebody out there in CO should throw a 9 volt battery at JD Drew. Or is it JD Douche?

Hey Garrett, are you able to watch the series over in Korea? Because it is about to come to an end and the Red Sox Nation will only get larger and more douchey. I imagine the bars in Manayunk are goin' crazy right now. Sigh.

Papplebaum belongs in Philly. Wouldn't his wackiness and talent work well here? What's his contract look like?

Oh yeah, I'm sure the Phils are gonna outspend the Red Sox for Papelbon. Don't bogart that joint, my friend. You're obviously high enough.

To some extent, I have been able to watch the series here. They do televise it and you can watch it on the net if you know where to look. Of course, I've either been at work on sleeping in at the time, so it was hard to watch it live. I'll be checking out the archived games in my spare time.

I'm bummed out by the sweep (unless my team's in it, I like long series), and I do think the New England area is just going to accumulate more and more hot air now given so much success in that area right now. Some Red Sox fans are pretty douchey, but the real tools are those that switch to temporarily rooting for them because they hate the Yankees. Many a journalist is now swinging over to the opinion that Red Sox nation and Yankees nation look pretty indistinguishable now.

Sorry, Rob, but you're not going to get Papelbon without exhausting all of your financial options to get him. He has little reason to leave. Mo Rivera will likely be available, but he's also a tough grab. Now that you have made the desperation move to Myers, it might be better to stick with it.

On another note, Phils fans: Did you know that two Red Sox players would consider going to Philly? ESPN Insider notes some interest (mind you, "some") from both Mike Lowell and former Phil Curt Schilling. Schill would be a bit risky at his age and shape, and he won't come back for cheap. Plus, Johan Santana and Dontrelle Willis will also be on the market.

Mike Lowell would be an awesome pickup. He hit well this year and would fit well in the 5,6,7 holes. He's terrific defensively, something the Phils have been missing since, oh, Scott Rolen, and he's in both good shape and decent age. He'll probably be more inclined to return to Boston, but if the Sox decide that A-Rod at third would be an upgrade (don't know if Lugo is contracted through or not), things change.

Here's a quote on the subject from Lowell himself, cited from ESPN:

"'There are a number of teams that I'd be interested in. Is it a playoff-caliber team? That's a big thing for me. And the Phillies obviously fit in there,' said Lowell, who was a Phillies fan as a kid. 'And I've always hit well in that [Citizens Bank Park -- .353 with seven homers, 14 RBIs]. So that would definitely be a team I would consider.'"

What do all these posts have to do with Dr. Strangelove?

BMT started the convo and everyone followed suit. Would you like the topic to return to Dr. Strangelove, Bob T.?

Not really. I was just being a smart ass. Dr. S. is a great movie though. So many quotable lines. It really captured the absurdity of the Cold War. For example, there's the scene where the Peter Sellers character playing the British officer is trying to get some change to make a phone call to basically save the world from nuclear holocaust and wants to shoot up the Coke machine to get change, and the American officer says something to the effect that I can't do that, that's private property. So many others too.

I liked your post about the guy who looks like Janet Reno. He does too.

Yeah, I love that Reno comment...

Strangelove is so hilarious. If there was ever a movie where it was worthwhile to look up the trivia facts behind the movie, it is this one. I think my favorite line is Strangelove's "It would not be difficult, Mein Fuhrer. Nuclear reactors could... I'm sorry, Mr. President... nuclear reactors could provide power almost indefinitely." Peter Sellers does one of the best acting jobs ever with that movie.

I've seen only seven Kubrick films but have liked or loved all of them. One thing I loved about five of those (the sixth not so much and the seventh I can't remember) is how memorable and striking the endings were, whether it be the visual wonder or the true meaning behind it.

Despite the Red Sox glorious victory, I am still extremely unattractive. I think I'll head to Manayunk to make myself feel better.