"Having young, lousy hitters representing half your lineup certainly helps."

And what does that tell you?

Tells me that future WS teams will have good pitching, good fielding, good base-running and decent hitting. Back to the future... without steroids ... Can you say: drag-bunt, squeeze-play, and team ERAs of 2.95? Sure you can. And, all that, with payrolls that will be 75mil or less...

Halla-freakin'-looyah!

The real secret for the Astros was a young, not exactly lousy but enormously overrated hitter who (fortunately for Houston) got away: Carlos Beltran.

Beltran would have been a little better than Taveras in center. Who wouldn't? But he would have cost $11 million more than Taveras for his nifty .266/.330/.414 season.

The Astros should send at least a thank-you note to Boras. Beltran's departure didn't hurt the team at all, and it made their payroll a lot lighter. A classic case of addition by subtraction.

By the way, it wasn't all joy for the Astros in their big payroll moves. Losing Kent really hurt, especially with Bagwell pretty much done and Berkman out for much of the early season. Kent's .289/.377/.512 bat would have helped avoid some of those severe offensive woes in the first couple months.

But getting rid of Beltran was almost all profit. There was little dropoff in performance - Taveras was real bad, Beltran was just bad - and a WHOLE lot of money saved.

Before we bow to the altar of "small ball," can we please take a moment to remember that each world championship team of the '00s has been different in terms of relative strengths and approach to the game?

I'm also not sure how 28 other teams are supposed to go out and find pitching the quality of Houston or Chicago. And if they do try, wouldn't that drive payrolls above $75 million anyway?

"I'm also not sure how 28 other teams are supposed to go out and find pitching the quality of Houston or Chicago."

Well, they'd better figure out a way - can't go out and find a couple of steroid-hitters (Yankees: Giambi and Sheffield) to fill-out the line-up anymore; that era is over. Everyone will HAVE to adapt somewhat to the new-back-to-the-old-game....

part of the reasons the astros salary is so low is that a number of their deals are backloaded for example pettitte is making 8.5m this year but gets 17.5m next year. Oswalt gets 5.9m in '05 and 11m in '06, and bagwell is getting 15m this year but that jumps to 17m next year (plus either 18m in '07 or a 7m buyout, my money is on the buyout unless the astros REALLY value loyalty). also given that they will have to pay lidge gagne-type money after his arbitration and you are looking at team that is cheap now because it is (more) expensive tomorrow.

The White Sox were well below average in stolen base percentage (led the league in caught stealing by a healthy margin). They may attempt to run a lot, and they may have a few good base-runners, but they're NOT a good base-running team.

They're a team with great pitching who hit a lot of HRs (5th in MLB).

The Astros will use the $18 million that went to Clemens in 2005 (he is retiring for good after this season) to cover the 2006 increases to Pettitte, Bagwell and Oswalt. Biggio will get $3 million next year, as will Ausmus (relative bargins for two experienced starters), and the rest of their current players make a total of $30 million, with a third of that going to Berkman.

The White Sox are NOT A SMALL BALL TEAM. That's all.

The mere fact that the Yankees and Red Sox took their millions and went home early makes this one of the greatest series ever.

I'm glad these teams showed that the little guys (or at least the mediorce guys) can still compete.

What exactly constitutes the "old game"? Do the '27 Yankees count as old? They scored 975 runs. The '32 Yanks scored 1002 runs. The '75 Reds scored 840 runs. The list goes on. Spare me the "now teams have to play real baseball" claptrap. The White Sox and Astros have dominating pitching staffs and terrible offenses, but the big hitter is still a must in every winning lineup. Where would the White Sox be without Konerko, or Houston without Berkman?

"Spare me the "now teams have to play real baseball" claptrap."

O.K. Have fun watching some other Steroid League, MLB ain't one anymore. Homeruns will always be a part of the game (ask Hank Aaron) - it's just NOT the WHOLE game from now on... memories of the 1998 season makes me want to puke.

Given all the pitchers caught using steroids, it seems that the cheating wasn't as lopsided as some would have us believe.

"Given all the pitchers caught using steroids..."

Any pitcher's names as big as hitters Bonds, Giambi, Sheffield, Palmeiro, or McGwire...?

No.

Point is, the reduction/elimination of steroid use by all players will change the game... back to one more recognizable, thankfully.

We just went a full season with the steroid policy in place. Five teams scored over 805 runs, and three made the playoffs while one missed by a single game. Two of those playoff teams won only because of their offense. The White Sox, Angels and Astros win in spite of their offense thanks to dominating pitching staffs, not because they could drop a squeeze. The "smallball" play was a function of their inability to get on base and score runs. And David is right, pitchers were just as guilty of taking steroids as the batters. Just because they're not household names doesn't mean they didn't gain an advantage from illicit substances.

I'm not sure about Clemens retiring after this year. He's got maybe 20 million reasons not to. If the Astros win the Series, he might go out on the glory. If they lose, I think the odds actually favor his return for another shot next year.

At any rate, the Astros will be able to afford a little payroll inflation. Dropping Beltran and Kent were two payroll moves that really cut the salary load this year. One move was great, one not so great. But the team withstood both and got to the Series. This should pay off for the Astros at the box office next year.

So I could see them bumping the payroll to, say, $95 milion next year in an effort to entice one more season from Clemens.

I hope Clemens just keeps on pitching until his arm falls off. He's got a sweet deal down there, not having to travel with the team until he's set to pitch, making piles of dough, and building his legendary status to ever new heights. I actually think it's this last piece that may keep him coming back. He's obsessed with his place in history...he knows all about each of the pitchers he passes for each milestone. I really enjoy being able to watch one of the top two or three pitchers in the history of the game.

On another note, the notion that MLB's harsher policy on steroids is resulting in some type of rose-colored-fantasy-renaissance of small ball is plain silly and naive. Not only is this just one year, but the further insistence that the two league champions are representative of successful "small ball" is simply a joke. The guys that make these below average to mediocre offenses NOT terrible are the guys who can actually mash the ball for extra base hits (see Konerko, Dye, Everett, Ensberg, Berkman). And the real reason for both teams being where they are is their incredible ability to keep their opponents off the board with outstanding pitching and very good (Houston) or fantastic (ChiSox) defense.

If good pitching stops good hitting every time, I think the sabermetrics people ought to concentrate on pitching exclusively.

I would add to YD that the sabermetic-built A's were largely successful due to Mulder-Hudson-Zito. And Harden and Blanton helped them make a pretty good run this year, too. The '05 A's ended with a 3.69 ERA, third-best in the AL.

Without their great pitching, the A's would've been as good as the Blue Jays were the past few years.

I'm surprised Steinbrenner hasn't gone nuclear yet. What was his payroll? $200+ million? What about the Red Sox? They were around $110 million, right?