THE WATERCOOLER

QUESTION: The Cards went 5-2 against the Dodgers in two series played back in July and August. That was then. This is now. How do you think the Cardinals match up with the Dodgers?

DERRICK GOOLD
St. Louis’ regular-season success masks the fact that the Cardinals didn’t really hit well against the Los Angeles Dodgers. In seven games this past season, the Cardinals, as a lineup, hit .218 with a .306 on-base percentage and a .343 slugging percentage. The Dodgers were able to contain the middle of the Cardinals’ order, pitching around Pujols (who hit .222 vs. LA, but had a .400 on-base percentage) and handcuffing Ryan Ludwick (.192/.276/.192). Matt Holliday offers somewhat of a deterrent there for the Dodgers, but he too had his troubles with LA pitching (4-for-22 at Dodger Stadium). All of that reveals how the Cardinals went 5-2 against the Dodgers this season: pitching. And that hasn’t changed from the regular season to October. Of all of the numbers that can be tossed out there to illustrate the Division Series ahead, it’s really two names that define the Cardinals’ edge in this series: Chris Carpenter and Adam Wainwright.

RICK HUMMEL
The edge the Cardinals have over the Dodgers is that they have two premier, top-of-the-line starters in Chris Carpenter and Adam Wainwright and the Dodgers have only one — and Clayton Kershaw still is in training. But Kershaw could be deadly pitching in Thursday afternoon’s twilight. The 5-2 mark is very misleading because many of the games were very close but in a five-game series, the team having two outstanding starting pitchers who potentially could make four starts is the better team.

JEFF GORDON
Randy Wolf will be a major pain for the Cardinals, given his ability to exploit their various offensive weaknesses. And LA has hammers at the back of its bullpen. But the Cards have a huge advantage with top-end pitching and with the Pujols/Holliday combo. The Dodgers are still sorting through their pitchers. The Cards seem set up to prevail in a short series. Neither team played great down the stretch and both teams have playoff-tested Hall of Fame-caliber managers, so this will be fun.

GERRY FRALEY
This is, by far, the better matchup for the Cardinals. The Dodgers lack a dominating starter. Their opening-game starter, lefthander Randy Wolf, is the bad-karma pitcher of the season. The Dodgers have nine blown saves behind Wolf, who has trouble getting beyond the sixth inning. Lefthander Clayton Kershaw allowed 4.79 walks per nine innings and also usually departs in the middle innings. The bullpen is fried after working 553 innings, the third-highest total in the majors. (The Cardinals’ bullpen had the fewest innings in the majors at 437.) The Cardinals were also among the first team to discover that Manny Ramirez, the Dodgers’ No. 3 hitter, can no longer handle hard stuff inside. Ramirez went 4-for-28 with no homers, one RBI and only two extra-base hits during the season series with the Cardinals.

THE WATERCOOLER

QUESTION: News came out Thursday that the names of Manny Ramirez and David Ortiz were on the list of 104 Major League Baseball players who tested positive in a 2003 test for performance-enhancing drugs. While the names of baseball players continue to leak out and those caught are held up for scorn and derision, it seems that NFL players caught using banned substances receive much less criticism. Do you believe that is the case, and if so, why?

JOE STRAUSS
It’s absolutely the case. The NFL reigns supreme in its relationship with and control of media. The hypocrisy of the Shawne Merriman example versus anything within baseball is striking. The guy tests positive, receives the requisite wrist slap and returns to get the third most votes for NFL Defensive Player of the Year. The perception is that NFL media are along for the ride, much as MLB media stand accused of during the 90’s. Why doesn’t the NFL require at least the same testing threshold as MLB? It’s not meant as a rhetorical question. Why does the NFL as an institution so tightly limit access to its players? It’s a fascinating question no one seems interested in answering.

JIM THOMAS
Many of the same media members who are railing against Ramirez and Ortiz were the same ones fawning over Sammy Sosa and Mark McGwire 10 years ago. There is less romanticizing and moralizing in football. In football, you test positive, you get suspended, you do your time, and you get on with it. For all the talk about steroids in baseball, how many big name players actually have been suspended? In addition, the biggest stars in football — quarterbacks, running backs, wide receivers — don’t necessarily play positions where steroids might help performance. You don’t need to be a mass of muscle to throw a football (See: Joe Montana), make a defensive lineman miss (See: Barry Sanders), or get separation from a defensive back (See: Isaac Bruce).

RICK HUMMEL
A very interesting question and one which baffles me. All I can surmise is that baseball has a much longer tradition than pro football and individual statistics and records mean so much more for fans in baseball than in pro football. But, it is interesting that a four-game drug suspension in football is treated like a hamstring pull while a similar penalty in baseball is treated like a major felony has been committed.

DERRICK GOOLD
Much less criticism? Less criticism and coverage is only the start. Mark McGwire, for example, cannot crack 25 percent on the Hall of Fame ballot because he is suspected of using performance-enhancing drugs due to his famously uncomfortable appearance before Congress and because a report in The New York Daily News linked him to possession of PEDs. There’s no positive test to hang the vote on. By contrast, San Diego linebacker Shawne Merriman was suspended for four games for a positive test in 2006. There was proof. There was punishment. He missed four games. And he still finished third that season for the voting for the Defensive Player of the Year. Merriman was part of the promotion campaign for Madden ’09. Think Alex Rodriguez will be the face on Topps baseball cards next season? Those are anecdotal examples of what has become a confounding part of our sports culture. Steroids are a societal problem, not a baseball problem. Yet, steroid news gravitates toward baseball. Perhaps it’s because the NFL is the gladiator sport, the physical, rough-and-tumble show. Perhaps it’s baseball’s roots, its devotion to its history, the value it places on its numbers. Perhaps it’s the culture of the sport, of the coverage, of the fanbase. Or, perhaps the NFL is on deck, awaiting its turn to face the heat.

BILL COATS
That does seem to be the case, although the situation with the Carolina Panthers a few years ago caused a pretty good stir. I’m not sure why football is less criticized. Maybe because it’s a much more physical sport played by much bigger people who must spend many, many hours in the weight room to be able to perform in their game. Less suspicion because of that, perhaps?

JEFF GORDON
Excellent question. Performance-enhancing drugs play a big role in sports. It has been a massive issue in Olympic sports like track and field and weightlifting. It has been a massive issue in cycling. It has been on the football scene forever, from high schools on up. And yet revelations of steroid/HGH in baseball causes outrage — as if Our National Pastime is supposed to be above it all. Fans act like the Hall of Fame is some sacred place when, in fact, it is loaded with scoundrels. I guess baseball is the most romantic of all the major sports and that stirs feelings of betrayal. It shouldn’t. Ballplayers push boundaries in competition, just as all athletes do.

LUKE THOMPSON
Unfortunately, I think this is true, due to the way we perceive the two sports. Even though football is more popular, baseball remains America’s pastime, with a much more sacred history. Old records matter more, and we tend to relate better to our favorite players because they’re out there for 162 games for everyone to see. Meanwhile, football players seem less like everyday people, maybe because they only play 16 games and they’re all wearing helmets and pads that make them look even larger than they actually are. That makes it a lot easier to look the other way when these freakish athletes are caught with steroids or the average weight of offensive linemen increases by ridiculously unhealthy amounts in a fairly short period of time.

THE WATERCOOLER

QUESTION: On the eve of Manny Ramirez’s return to the Dodgers I ask the following … do you think the average fan really cares about players using performance-enhancing drugs, or do you think fans just want to be entertained and don’t care about PEDs as long as their teams are winning and their favorite players are performing well?

RICK HUMMEL
I think many fans care about players associated with PEDs, but largely when they play for the other team. The more knowledgable ones will note that PEDs are not indigenous to baseball. But, in football, for some reason, a suspension for one-quarter of a season because of a violation of the drug policy, is treated much like a hamstring injury.

JEFF GORDON
I’d say most fans are pretty indifferent about PEDs right now. Most fans can figure out that abuse was rampant and that baseball is making a real effort to clean it up now. Some fans were turned off, of course, and some may have quit coming to games. But Manny Ramirez will get a mostly positive reaction when he returns to action for the Dodgers. The LA fans just want a winning team, like teams elsewhere. ManRam has been a force for that franchise during his brief time there, so most fans will rally behind him.

DAN O’NEILL
I think the latter part of the question is most true. Ultimately fans want to be entertained and want to watch a winner. They have become nearly immune to scandals, steroids, outlandish salaries, off-field shenanigans, etc. Do they frown on performance-enhancement, yes. Do they prefer players not use them, yes. Are they disappointed when the integrity of the competition is compromised, yes. But in the end, it’s not a make-or-break issue. If it turned out Albert Pujols was a user, would the majority of St. Louis baseball fans scorn him? C’mon. You know better.

REID LAYMANCE
I care. I get mad at the players and all of baseball for letting it go on for so long. I loved watching Barry Bonds play for the Pirates and even in his early years with the Giants. One of the game’s best. But in his final transformation in San Francisco (and despite his vows of doing nothing wrong), it has made it hard to still like the Bonds from the early years. Same with Roger Clemens, who’ve I seen play since high school. I still cheer for the players I like, but sometimes not as loudly. And that makes me mad. So I care.

KATHLEEN NELSON
Depends why you watch in the first place. I think fans who love Manny or enjoy the cult of personality don’t care much about performance enhancing drugs. I think fans who love baseball care that the use of PEDs damage the integrity of the game.

LUKE THOMPSON
I don’t think PEDs are a huge concern for the average fan. At this point, it seems like most people are getting tired of hearing about the steroid mess. Some are even attacking the media for blowing things out of proportion or speculating too much, while at the same time lashing out at them for not finding the original story sooner. For most people, the success of their team is paramount, and most fans are willing to overlook mistakes, especially when they can tell themselves things like, “Well, he had to do it to keep up.” But one potential problem that the steroid era created is that fans no longer have the same connection with players and respect for the sport as a whole. They can still root for their favorite team, but they may be less inclined to watch the Fox game of the week or a playoff series once their team is eliminated, because PEDs have distanced players even more from the fans who adore them.

THE WATERCOOLER:

QUESTION: Should Chris Carpenter be the starter for the NL in the All-Star game? Going into tonight’s game, he is 4-0 with a 0.71 ERA in 38 innings (not enough to qualify for the league leaders). Johan Santana of the Mets is 7-3 and 2.00 and San Francisco’s Matt Cain is 7-1, 2.27.

BERNIE MIKLASZ:
Obviously, Carpenter needs to stay healthy and roll up enough starts to qualify as the league’s ERA leader. And he must continue to pitch very well to have a shot because there’s no shortage of excellent starting pitchers in the NL. Because Santana (compared to Carpenter) hasn’t missed a start, you’d have to rate him as the top NL pitcher to this point. Santana has won seven games, but in his three losses he’s given up only three earned runs (total). This is shaping up to be a very competitive field. Do not discount the chances of Dan Haren, Johnny Cueto, Chad Billingsley, Josh Johnson and Yovani Gallardo. Heck, Jason Marquis leads the NL with eight wins. It’s been an exceptional season so far for NL starting pitchers. And even though Carpenter has that miniscule ERA (0.71) he has some catching up to do because he missed time while on the DL.

RICK HUMMEL:
Not off what he’s done _ yet. Carpenter would have to have seven or eight wins by the time the players, coaches and managers conclude their voting for pitchers later this month. Santana and Lincecum are my choices right now.

DERRICK GOOLD:
If looking for an All-Star Game starter tonight - right this moment - I would lean more toward the pitcher Chris Carpenter opposes tonight than picking Chris Carpenter. Florida’s Josh Johnson has had an impressive and All-Star-worthy season so far, and unlike Carpenter he didn’t miss a hunk of time. It’s absence that really hurts Carpenter’s candidacy as the starter for the All-Star Game. The list of pitchers ahead of him for that honor starts with Johan Santana, includes Johnson, and has Los Angeles Dodgers pitcher Chad Billingsley near the top, too. Carpenter is pitching like an All-Star, sure, and if he gets that deserved invitation to the game he should be the second pitcher in. That way the hometown crowd gets a hometown battery when Carpenter throws to Yadier Molina.

DAN O’NEILL:
As much as I admire Chris Carpenter as a competitor and talent, there’s no way he should be the starter for the NL in the All-Star Game - unless no one else wants to do it. Often, and rightfully so, All-Star recognition is based, at least in part, on what a player might have done the previous season. Carpenter missed all of last season. Moreover, he has missed quite a bit of the first half of the 2009 season. Coming into Tuesday evening’s start Carpenter had participated in six of the club’s 58 games and 38 of its 527 innings. Granted, they have been All-Star quality contributions. But for me, a player has to be a bit more involved and demonstrate more of a track record than that. It’s basically the same argument as to why Manny Ramirez had no business being considered for the NL Most Valuable Player award last season.

JEFF GORDON:
He has barely pitched for three seasons so, no, he shouldn’t start in the All-Star Game. Albert Pujols will do a fine job as the Cardinals front man for that weekend. Cards fans would love to see him pitch an inning, to honor his persistence on the comeback trail, but that would be plenty. Now, if he keeps winning all season, then we can talk about his Cy Young candidacy. THAT he can win.

GERRY FRALEY:
Sentiment says Randy Johnson should start for the NL. That would recognize his remarkable accomplishment of winning 300 games and also create the possibility of seeing Johnson terrorize a left-handed hitter as he did John Kruk and Larry Walker in previous All-Star appearances. On sheer performance, Santana is the choice. He goes into tonight’s play leading the NL in ERA and has operated with a minute margin of error all season. The Mets have scored three runs or fewer in seven of his 11 starts. Santana’s wins include a pair of 1-0 games and a 2-1 victory. Here’s a vote for having the NL starter work the maximum three innings. Greg Maddux is the last All-Star starter to pitch the maximum three innings, in 1994. The new-face-every-inning approach creates late-game problems that can cause managers to over-extend remaining pitchers.

THE WATERCOOLER

QUESTION: With much more strident testing policies in Major League Baseball now, and with all the negative publicity and fan backlash that comes with being exposed as a user of an illegal substance, what do you think would compel a player today to keep using performance enhancers? And what could possibly make them think they are not going to get caught?

JOE STRAUSS

The discussion shouldn’t be limited to the use of PEDs themselves but also to masking agents, such as what Manny Ramirez attempted. Anyone who believes MLB is on top of cutting edge PEDs is naive. For example, there is no testing for HGH, which has benefits of its own. (HGH users have only been caught via federal investigators tracking mailed substances by quacks and outlaw pharmaceutical firms. Discipline has been virtually non-existent.) Manny likely was told a substance would slip detection and either abused it or plain got unlucky. There are all kinds of reasons for continued use. Greed and stupidity top the list. At least outing Ramirez punctures the argument that MLB will hold back on disciplining a superstar 50 games.

QUESTION: “Speaking of PED’s, would you be surprised if….”

ANSWER: “Don’t even finish the question. The answer is no.”

RICK HUMMEL

I don’t know if there is all that much fan backlash. Certainly there is from the media but I think the fans want production and tend to forgive and almost forget if a player produces. Why a player uses may, in some cases, be as simple as trying to keep up with — and get ahead — of his peers. As to the last point, historically, athletes have deemed themselves invisible.

JEFF GORDON

This is a big step forward for baseball. It discourages players from experimenting with the stuff. It warns owners and GMs to stay away from suspected juicers. It reassures fans that MLB is serious about this issue. World-class athletes have stayed a step ahead of testing technology for decades. So the cat-and-mouse game will continue. After Ben Johnson went down hard after the Seoul Olympics, track and field stars continued to juice. Even he resumed juicing, after serving a two-year ban. So, no, the ManRam suspension won’t totally clean up baseball. If a player is really committing to juicing, this suspension just makes him be more careful.

DAN O’NEILL

Let’s see now, what would compel a major league baseball player to use performance-enhancing drugs. Hmmmm? Could it be the $24 million a year Manny Ramirez signed for, or maybe the $275 million Alex Rodriguez plays for, or is it maybe the $72 million Miguel Tejada got a few years ago? Players are going to do whatever it takes because one good season, or one good stretch can result in a lifetime of wealth. Players have been trying to find an edge throughout the history of the game, from spitballs, to corked bats, to steroids. And some will continue to try because there will always be that enticement of a giant payoff. Yes, some have been caught. Most likely, many more have not.

KEVIN WHEELER (Host of “Sports Open Line” on KMOX)

Two things compel the guys who are willing to cheat to succeed: money and fame.

To them, the risk is worth the reward. Even if they get caught all they have to do is serve a 50-game suspension and give up 50 game checks, which isn’t all that big a deal if your performance has already netted you more than $150 million over the years. They deal with the shame by cruising around South Beach in their $150,000 sports cars.

What makes them think they won’t get caught? People cheat on their taxes, cheat on their spouses, steal from their companies and flat out just take what they want all the time. What makes anyone think they’ll get away with it?

There are four possible explanations — too stupid to realize they’ll get caught, too arrogant to think anyone could outsmart them, plain old crazy or they just don’t care about getting caught.

Take your pick with Manny…

THE WATERCOOLER

QUESTION: There recently has been a lot of speculation about whether or not Missouri basketball coach Mike Anderson would leave Mizzou next year to become head coach at Alabama or Georgia. Do you believe either of those spots to be a better job than what Anderson has now at Missouri?

BERNIE MIKLASZ
Missouri is clearly the best job of the three. I don’t know Anderson well on a personal level and can’t know what’s in his mind or heart. But if he is inclined to move on I would have to think that the idea of going home to Alabama is appealing to Coach and his wife. If Alabama throws a bunch of money at him the idea of a homecoming would be even sweeter. But again I can’t pretend I know what the man is thinking or whether the lure of going home to Alabama is a powerful and personal factor.

VAHE GREGORIAN
Obviously, the chance to coach in the SEC isn’t to be shrugged off, especially since Coach Anderson is from Birmingham. And maybe those programs have deeper pockets than Mizzou in terms of what they might be able to offer financially. But MU has been to more NCAA Tournaments (21, on the verge of 22) than those two programs combined (20) and reached more regional finals (four) than those two combined (one). Now that the program is back on its feet, it is regularly selling out Mizzou Arena. In short, the Tigers have better tradition and are in a far better place now — contending for Big 12 title — than the two SEC also-rans. Perhaps the temptation to go home or near home will be too much for Anderson to resist, or maybe one of the schools will make an offer he can’t turn down. But he’s already got the best of the three jobs right now.

STU DURANDO
In terms of success, Alabama has enjoyed the most this decade of the three programs, having gone to the NCAA Tournament seven times under Mark Gottfried, who resigned in the middle of this season. The Crimson Tide have dipped some in recent years but went to the tournament from 2002-06, earned a No. 1 ranking in ’03 and reached the Elite Eight in ’04. Georgia and Missouri have both been to the tournament four times since 2000 but those appearances were awhile ago. Of course, Alabama might be attractive because Anderson is from Birmingham and had success at UAB while recruiting successfully in that region of the country. That certainly would make Alabama interested in him.

But at Georgia and Alabama, the basketball programs take a backseat to the football programs, at least moreso than at Missouri. A little research showed that Missouri, Georgia and Alabama spent comparable amounts on men’s basketball during the 2007-08 season, according to data provided by each school for their equity in athletics reports. Missouri actually spent the most despite having a smaller overall athletic budget and generated the most revenue of the three. Expenditures for football at Alabama and Georgia far exceeded those at Missouri.

JEFF GORDON
Missouri is a better job, based on the long-range potential of the program. Wonderful arena, strong basketball conference, history of strong support, solid national profile, two metro areas within two hours . . . the pieces are all there. Anderson has natural ties to the SEC recruiting area, but he is proving capable of luring strong recruits to Mizzou. The one plus offered by Alabama and Georgia: Working in the shadow of SEC football affords a coach plenty of room to work.

TOM TIMMERMANN
Given the choice between living in Columbia, Mo., Tuscaloosa, Ala., and Athens, Ga., I’d choose Athens hands down. It’s a great city. However, I wouldn’t choose to coach in the SEC. It’s the worst of the six BCS leagues and in just about every city, the basketball program is incidental to the football program. I think Anderson has the potential to be more successful — and over a longer period of time — at Mizzou than at either Alabama or Georgia. The others would probably throw more money his way, but they have to.

KATHLEEN NELSON
I’ve never seen the facilities at Alabama, Missouri or Georgia, so I don’t know which of the three has more comfy chairs for watching film or newer dumbbells for workouts or softer training tables — the stuff that separates great programs from good ones and seems to matter a lot to recruits. Perhaps the facilities are on equal footing. But say “Crimson Tide” or “Bulldogs” to a sports fan, and he’ll think of football. They are Football Schools. Not basketball schools. In contrast, the reputation of Missouri’s basketball program stands on a par these days with the football program. If being treated on equal footing with football is important to Anderson, he should stay.

****

MIDDAY NEWS AND THOUGHTS

A FEW BLUES VIEWS:

1. Welcome to St. Louis, Danny Richmond. So now I understand why there was all the excitement about the trade deadline … who knew the Blues had the chance to land an AHL defenseman? (Yes, the deadline is still a little more than an hour away, so something else could happen.)

2. With the Blues only a few points out of a playoff spot, it’s nice that fans have had something to get excited about this late in the season. It’s been a long time. But after watching the Red Army march into the Scotty last night and completely dismantle the Blues, it was a stark reminder of how far this team has to go to compete with the league’s elite, particularly in a playoff series. I believe the Blues will reach the playoffs next year … but without adding some offensive talent, it’s going to take another two or three years for the kids to grow up before this team can trade punches with the big boys come playoff time.

3. Question: Is David Backes playing on the grind line because of his lack of production, or, is David Backes’ lack of production because he is playing on the grind line? Chicken or the egg, please? A month ago I was singing Backes’ praises as perhaps the team’s best player. In recent weeks he’s been MIA. Would the real David Backes please stand up?

DUST UP IN THE DESERT: Just a month ago Arizona Cardinal fans were celebrating their team’s wild ascension to Super Bowl contender. So many warm and fuzzy stories about the Lil’ Engine that Could and how everything was finally coming together for this franchise. Fast forward one month … MVP quarterback Kurt Warner remains unsigned and is being wooed by the division rival Niners. Star wide receiver Anquan Boldin has told the club he wants a contract extension, and if that can’t be worked out, he’d wants to be traded. And today comes the news that RB Edgerrin James has told the club he’d like to be released. That’s a lot of turmoil in one month. Perhaps that Super Bowl appearance was just a stopover at an oasis and the team will soon be banished to desert afterthought once again.

****

SOMETHING TO PONDER

FLIP-FLOPPING IN L.A.: Just last week the Los Angeles media was taking Manny Ramirez to task for turning down the Dodgers two-year, $45 million contract offer. Manny was selfish. Manny didn’t care about anyone but Manny. Nobody else wanted Manny so he should feel privileged by the Dodgers’ offer, etc., etc., etc. Bottom line, the L.A. media ate him up. But upon the news that Manny apparently has changed his mind, he’s just a “giggly,” good-hearted, misunderstood guy. Well, you can read yourself what T.J. Simers has to say in the L.A. Times today.

For my money, Manny’s as selfish as ever and the only reason he’s taking this deal now is because his reputation has become so unmanageable that he knows he’s not going to get a better offer from anyone else. So the L.A. media can wrap their arms around Manny today … but let’s watch how long it takes before they are dogging him in Hollywood for not hustling, pouting, etc., etc., etc.

****

STAT OF THE DAY

47 — That’s the most points scored by an individual player in one NHL playoff year. Wayne Gretzky did it for the Edmonton Oilers in 1985. On their march to the Stanley Cup that year, the Oilers played just 18 games. Gretzky collected his 47 points on 17 goals and 30 assists, an average of 2.6 points per game. Wow. (Source: Hockey’s Top 100: The Game’s Greatest Records)

THE WATERCOOLER

THE SHOWDOWN: Break down this Sunday’s Missouri-Kansas matchup in Lawrence and tell us who wins and why.

BERNIE MIKLASZ
This will be a difficult setting for the Mizzou Tigers. The team is obviously playing with a lot of confidence these days, and that will help the cause. This should be a terrific game: a renewal of a wonderful rivalry that will showcase two ascending teams. I have to give the edge to KU. The Jayhawks haven’t lost at home in a long time, and Allen Fieldhouse is one of the most imposing and impressive settings in college basketball. The young Tigers are almost ready to snatch a game at KU, but not quite yet. The Jayhawks should have won in Columbia but discovered that this was a different kind of Mizzou team: one that won’t back down. It’s almost as if KU, accustomed to so many recent surrenders by MU basketball, was caught off guard by Mizzou’s resilient comeback. I don’t think that will happen this time. Kansas won’t be surprised by MU’s aggression. And KU’s floor leader, Sherron Collins, will finish strong. He faded down the stretch in the first encounter.
FINAL SCORE: Kansas 82, Missouri 76.

JEFF GORDON
Missouri is rolling. The Tigers have 11 guys playing with confidence. Their kids aren’t kids anymore. It’s easy to build a scenario where they upset the Jayhawks on the road. If they take care of the basketball and hit their shots, they can use their superior depth to beat anybody anywhere. But . . . Bill Self is a great coach, KU will be jacked up at home and the Jayhawks will hit their shots this time. The Jayhawks had a chance to blow the Tigers off the court in Columbia and they blew their opportunity. Sunday, the shots go down.
FINAL SCORE: Kansas 91, Missouri 84

VAHE GREGORIAN
The game figures to have a totally different complexion than the first. The Jayhawks won’t commit 27 turnovers again, the Tigers won’t be held to 16 points in the first half and MU also won’t be able to overcome repeated double-digit deficits again. If KU gets up big early, the Tigers will keep playing but KU will stiffarm them away and win comfortably. If MU keeps it close in the first half, the ending should be similar to the sizzling one in Columbia. I think the Tigers are too good at this stage to let it get out of control and should be another great game.
FINAL SCORE: Kansas 73, Missouri 70

DAN O’NEILL
It’s an interesting game to analyze based on the crazy last meeting, which Missouri won 62-60 at Mizzou Arena. On one hand, Missouri was fortunate to win at home, benefiting from a late Kansas meltdown. On the other hand, Missouri won despite playing poorly for two-thirds of the game. Soooo … if the Tigers play well from the get-go this time, what happens? Here are some factors:

• Good start: Hard to believe the Tigers won last time after scoring just 16 points in the first half — they trailed 30-16. Hard to believe they could have a similar start this time and still be in the building for the second half.

• Missouri’s defense: It caused 27 Kansas turnovers in the last meeting, and it will have to be at its chaos-creating best to disrupt the Jayhawks and quiet the Allen Fieldhouse crowd. Missouri had 13 steals in the last game, they will need at least that many this time.

• 3-point shooting: MU leads the Big 12 in 3-point shooting defense, and that will be important. Like many teams, KU tends to struggle offensively without 3-point injections. The Jayhawks were just 2 of 15 from the arch last time. Meanwhile, Missouri was 2 of 14, and it must do better, must get Matt Lawrence (0 for 2) more involved.

• Rebounding: Missouri was outrebounded 48-28 last time — yikes! A lot of that had to do with shooting the ball poorly. The Tigers were 7 of 29 from the field during the first half in the last game.
• Free Throws: The first meeting, Mizzou was 1 for 4 from the line in the first half, 17 of 23 in the second. The Tigers have to hope DeMarre Carroll can wear out a path to the line this time.

• Sherron Collins: KU’s excellent guard is coming off a 26-point performance against Oklahoma and is fourth in the Big 12 in scoring average (18.3). Hear that J.T. Tiller? That’s your man.

Both teams have momentum, with KU coming off a big win at Oklahoma and Missouri riding a seven-game streak. But winning at Kansas will be a tall order for the Tigers.
FINAL SCORE: Kansas 87, Missouri 79

TOM TIMMERMANN
First off, show of hands: How many people expected the Mizzou basketball team to be ranked higher than the football team? Mizzou won the last meeting because Kansas came apart down the stretch, and still, if one or two iffy calls had gone the other way, the Jayhawks would have won in Columbia. KU, no doubt rattled by what the Tigers threw at them, committed gobs of turnovers. They’ll be better composed in Lawrence. If KU hangs on to the ball, that will be a major difference.

Normally, I say pick against the team coming off a big win, like KU’s at No. 3 Oklahoma. But, 1) almost a week has passed since that game; 2) Oklahoma didn’t have Blake Griffin, so that takes some of the luster off the win; and 3) what the Jayhawks have been hearing around campus all week hasn’t been, “good job against Oklahoma,” it’s been, “Beat Missouri.” I think Sherron Collins will do better than the 9 points he had last time and Tyshawn Taylor will do better than his 11.
FINAL SCORE: Kansas 64, Missouri 56

KATHLEEN NELSON
Two factors work against Missouri. The Tigers will need a more consistent performance than the spotty effort they mustered in beating the Jayhawks in Columbia. In addition, KU’s tough at home.
FINAL SCORE: Kansas 82, Missouri 78

MIKE SMITH
Coach Self will sell this one to his players as being the equivalent of a national championship game. Feeding off the fan frenzy, the Jayhawks will respond accordingly. And if I’m Self, or any other coach with a physical post man like Aldrich, I pound it inside against Mizzou for 40 minutes. Lyons will back off soon as he sees that’s the strategy, saddling Carroll with the impossible task of singlehandedly stopping the inside game. Translation: He’ll foul out.
FINAL SCORE: Kansas 69, Missouri 57.

****

MIDDAY NEWS AND THOUGHTS

MANNY REJECTS TWO-YEAR, $45 MILLION OFFER: You saw my thoughts yesterday that Manny Ramirez would be crazy to turn down the Dodgers offer. Still, it appears his agent Scott Boras has done just that. And I’m not the only one who thinks he’s nuts. Bill Plaschke of the Los Angeles Times writes today: “This week, by every stretch of the wildest imagination, the Dodgers made Manny Ramirez a no-lose proposition. By rejecting it Thursday, Ramirez has officially lost it. He’s lost his dignity. He’s lost his perspective. He’s lost his marbles.”

Plaschke also has some pointed words for Boras. You should check out his column today.

REDSKINS AT IT AGAIN: Redskins owner Dan Snyder desperately wants to win. He just hasn’t figured out yet that throwing money around isn’t always the way to get it done (See: New York Yankees.) Still, Snyder pulled out the wallet Thursday night and kept it out until the wee hours Friday in an attempt to build a winner in Washington.

First, Snyder ponied up a six-year, $54 million deal ($22.5 million guaranteed) to retain DeAngelo Hall. The deal made Hall one of the league’s highest paid cornerbacks. But at that point Snyder was just getting started, because as soon as free agency opened around midnight, he signed DT Albert Haynesworth to a seven-year, $100 million deal ($41 million guaranteed.)

It’s not Snyder spending money that I find surprising … it’s just how he spent it. Hall was actually cut by the Raiders last season after eight games. Cut. By the Raiders. He ended up with Washington and finished the season on a high note. But a $54 million high note? I don’t know. As to Haynesworth hitting the free-agent jackpot … I know he was one of the most coveted free agents on the market this year, but do you really spend $100 million on an interior defensive lineman?

Snyder has swung and missed on many big-name free agents in the past, but who knows, maybe this is the year he gets it right. Time will tell if it was money well spent.

****

SOMETHING TO PONDER

WEDNESDAY ROUND 2 REDUX:
WILL TKACHUK BE A HALL OF FAMER?

My friend Kevin Wheeler, who hosts “Sports Open Line” on KMOX, stated his case earlier this week in this space for why he thought St. Louis Blues forward Keith Tkachuk is unquestionably a Hall of Famer. Not everyone agreed. In the spirit of debate, Kevin went back to work and offers up the following to support his case:

FROM KEVIN: After giving this subject a little more thought, because I’m a sports guy and that’s what I do, I decided to do a little more research on the subject of Keith Tkachuk and the Hall of Fame. The raw numbers I presented in Wednesday’s Round Two were pretty compelling, but what I found when I dug a little deeper was even better.

With a little extra time on my hands I sat down and compared Tkachuk to Hall of Famers Glenn Anderson, Bernie Federko, Dale Hawerchuk, Joe Mullen and Peter Stastny. What I looked at was the number of goals each scored per game compared to the number of goals scored per game overall in the NHL during their respective careers.

Even the least-experienced hockey fans recognize the fact that offense in the NHL is not what it used to be. Goals are harder than ever to come by, even after a bunch of rules changes, but I don’t think people truly understand how much scoring has decreased over the last 15 years.

Here’s how Tkachuk’s goals per game rate stacks up against the aforementioned Hall of Famers:

Goals per game
Tkachuk - 0.47
Anderson - 0.44
Hawerchuk - 0.44
Federko - 0.37
Mullen - 0.47
Stastny - 0.46

Tkachuk scores more per game than anyone on that list except Mullen, which kind of surprised me. Even in an era where fewer goals are being scored on a nightly basis, Walt’s scoring rate compares favorably with five guys who were no-brainers for the Hall.

I also looked the points per game rate:

Points per game
Tkachuk - 0.93
Anderson - 0.97
Hawerchuk - 1.19
Federko - 1.13
Mullen - 1.00
Stastny - 1.27

He’s at the bottom of the barrel here but within a whisker of Anderson and Mullen.

The numbers below signify the average goals scored per game in the NHL from the first year each player stepped into the league until the day they retired.

Total goals scored per game
Tkachuk era - 5.51
Anderson era - 7.28
Hawerchuk era - 7.25
Federko era - 7.48
Mullen era - 7.17
Stastny era - 7.35

In other words, there were roughly 25% more goals scored during the careers of the five Hall of Famers than there were during Tkachuk’s career.

Tkachuk has played in the NHL equivalent of baseball’s “Dead Ball Era” yet he still scores goals at the same rate as Hall of Famers who played in the high-flying offensive years.

Voters may or may not consider these kinds of facts when the time comes, preferring to fall back on lazy critiques that are more about the teams Tkachuk has played for than on what he’s accomplished as an individual, but they should at least do the amount of digging I was able to do between the 2nd and 3rd period of the Blues-Stars game Thursday night.

Nothing can “prove” that Tkachuk will he in the Hall someday because voters are human and humans can be a little goofy, but I think his case is outstanding even if has yet to play for a team good enough to win the Stanley Cup.

****

STAT OF THE DAY

548 — Most career homers hit by a player who played his entire career for only one franchise. Philadelphia’s Mike Schmidt leads the list. Here’s the top 20, along with their HR totals and the team they played for:

1. Mike Schmidt, 548, PHI
2. Mickey Mantle, 536, NYY
3. Ted Williams, 521, BOS
4, Ernie Banks, 512, CHC
5. Mel Ott, 511, NYG
6. Lou Gehrig, 493, NYY
7. Willie Stargell, 475, PIT
8. STAN MUSIAL, 475, STL
9. Carl Yastrzemski, 452, BOS
10. Jeff Bagwell, 449, HOU
11. Cal Ripken, 431, BAL
12. Chipper Jones, 408, ATL
13. Al Kaline, 399, DET
14. Johnny Bench, 389, CIN
15. Jim Rice, 382, BOS
16. Joe DiMaggio, 361, NYY
17. ALBERT PUJOLS, 319, STL
18. George Brett, 317, KC
19. Todd Helton, 310, COL
20. Edgar Martinez, 309, SEA

(SOURCE: Baseballreference.com)

THE WATERCOOLER

QUESTION: Does the Rams’ release of wide receiver Drew Bennett have any impact on whether or not Torry Holt is back with the team next season, or do you think this just means the team will seek a WR earlier in the draft or try to target a veteran in free agency?

JIM THOMAS
Absolutely none. Even had he stayed, Bennett would have had to prove himself all over again in St. Louis. Similarly, Bennett’s release won’t really have much of an impact on what the Rams do draft-wise or free agent-wise with the position.

BILL COATS
I don’t think it affects Holt’s status, because the Rams saved virtually nothing in the salary cap by releasing Bennett. Still, the team is going to have to round up some wide receivers in the next few months, via free agency, the draft or otherwise. Right now, they’re very young and very slim at that position.

BRYAN BURWELL
The release of Drew Bennett is totally independent of what the Rams front office plans to do with Torry Holt. One (Bennett) was a totally unproductive mistake of free agency who never proved to be an effective weapon or leader for this struggling offense. Cutting him shows that GM Billy Devaney and head coach Steve Spagnuolo won’t waste much time keeping anyone who can’t help this franchise win. The decision on Holt — and by extension Orlando Pace — will come down to only one thing: Can they still help win ball games? That’s exactly how the decision should be made.

KATHLEEN NELSON
I think Bennett’s departure has no effect on Holt’s future, if what our own Jim Thomas reported a few days ago remains true about Holt being unwilling to restructure his deal. I also agree with Jim that the Rams might feel that after delivering seven Pro Bowl seasons, Holt deserves another shot — soon — at glory. That’s more likely to happen elsewhere. Free agents Laveranues Coles and T.J. Houshmanzadeh might be worth talking to, since the Rams could use a veteran, steadying hand at receiver, but the cupboard is pretty bare after those two.

TOM ACKERMAN (Sports anchor on “Total Information A.M.” on KMOX)
If Holt doesn’t restructure his contract, I don’t see how he stays in St. Louis. Torry still has some good football left in him, but that’s a hefty price tag for the Rams if he isn’t their No. 1 receiving option anymore. The offense will revolve around Steven Jackson, anyway, so the offensive line is a priority. The Rams need a defensive identity, too, and that will require money. Second-year wideouts Donnie Avery and Keenan Burton are intriguing, but they need a veteran on the roster. I wish there was a way to keep Holt around, but I envision the Rams searching for a free-agent veteran WR at a lesser price.

****

MIDDAY NEWS AND THOUGHTS

IT’S MANNY’S WORLD: And apparently he’s just sharing it with the rest of us. Poor Manny Ramirez, the player without a team. Remember a few weeks back when Cardinals slugger Albert Pujols was lobbying for Manny to join the Cardinals because his out-of-work friend said no teams wanted him? Poppycock.

According to the Los Angeles Times, the Dodgers have reapproached Ramirez with a new offer: a two-year deal that would pay Ramirez $25 million this season and a player option at $20 million next season. That means Ramirez can “choose” whether or not to accept the $20 million next year. But at this point Ramirez has not accepted the deal and it’s reported his agent Scott Boras is still in “negotiations” with the Dodgers on the contract.

Negotiations? What exactly more does Ramirez want? Unquestionably he’s been one of the game’s bigger sluggers over the years (when, that is, he actually feels like playing.) But what more is he looking for? Does Ramirez and Boras think the Dodgers should pony up for a four- or five-year deal for an outfielder (I use the term loosely) who’s going to turn 37 in May?

I’ve always kind of enjoyed sitting back and watching the theatrics that come along with Manny being Manny, but the excess and largesse surrounding this whole offseason with Ramirez is just too much. If he does sign the deal with the Dodgers, it’s only a matter of time until Ramirez finds something else to pout about and holds the team hostage to his demands. Look around, Manny, you ain’t got it so bad.

MANNY, PART DEUX: The satirical online magazine The Onion reports today that agent Scott Boras was able to get Manny $20 billion in economic stimulus funds from the U.S. government. Oh, and there are incentives. Check it out.

SOMETHING TO PONDER

FREE AGENCY AWAITS: The NFL free agency period opens at midnight tonight. You’re likely to see a lot of movement around the league this year. Make sure you check out Jim Thomas’ report in the Post-Dispatch tomorrow morning where he breaks down not only the Rams’ needs in free agency, but also highlights the top five free agents at every position.

****

STAT OF THE DAY

41 years — Before Wednesday night, that’s how long it had been since Northwestern University men’s basketball team had beaten Indiana at Assembly Hall in Bloomington. The Wildcats had been 0-33 in Bloomington since their last victory there in 1968.