"The Breakfast Table is a (mostly) morning e-mail exchange between football writers and friends Mike Salfino and Scott Pianowski. Always snappy, sometimes snippy but never high in carbs, the BT's main course is an in-depth analysis of the latest NFL developments. But side dishes of music, movies, television and the rest of the cultural zeitgeist are ordered up when the mood strikes. Salfino is stuck somewhere in the swamps of Jersey. Pianowski lives above the desiccated remains of Jimmy Hoffa in Michigan. They've been tabling together since 2002."

2006 Baseball Postseaon Preview with Steve Moyer

From: Michael Salfino <salfino@comcast.net>
Date: October 2, 2006 10:46:52 AM EDT
To: pianowski <spianow@gmail.com>,Steve Moyer
Subject: Mini Baseball Postseason Breakfast

I have to say that I'd be more excited about an episode of "House" than Yanks-Tigers on Fox on Tuesday night. Detroit couldn't beat the Royals and now ventures into the Bronx to face the Richie Riches, who sport maybe the best lineup ever. What's Nate Robertson doing pitching Game 1 or is that a misprint?

Does Twins-A's have the feel of a consolation round or is this my east-coast bias showing? Please make a case for the winner beating the Yanks.

My Mets are reeling with the Pedro news. That was a buzz kill. But aren't the Dodgers without an ace, too, given Brad Penny's crashing back to earth harder this summer than Steve Austin?

The Cardinals had a chance to be talked about forever and they blew it. Has there ever been a playoff team with dimmer championship prospects than St. Louis? Can San Diego possibly stumble if they pitch around Pujols?

The Table is set. First up is Steve Moyer, our friend and colleague and president of Baseball Info Solutions, which provides stats and analysis to numerous big-league teams. What is not being said or said loudly enough about each series? And, most importantly, who is going to win not just this round but overall? 2006 Postseason Baseball Breakfast is served.

From: Steve Moyer
Date: October 3, 2006 11:11:47 AM EDT
To: salfino@comcast.net, spianow@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Mini Baseball Postseason Breakfast

First of all, I'm immune to your highfalutin (my original butchering of that word brought up "flatulent" in the spellchecker) TV references. I watch "Survivor" with my wife and kids, "South Park" with my wife, and just about anything "Ultimate Fighting" (best totally-ignored-by-the-sports-media sport ever) with anyone who wants to watch with me. (Sporadic "Ultimate Fighting" bouts are constantly breaking out around the Moyer household between my wife, me and our two young daughters. I win most of them.) Other than sports and movies, that's all for me.

Tigers/Yanks? If good pitching beats good hitting every time, why is no one picking the Tigers? In reality, good pitching beats good hitting unless the good pitching isn't good. But who am I to question the playoff cliches that rain on us every October like frogs in "Magnolia" (pretty good freakin' pop culture reference there, wouldn't you say?)?

Everybody talks about the best trio of starters being invincible (remember when the Marlins were "the team no one wants to face in the playoffs" just a short month ago?). I see no conclusive historical evidence of that. For anyone you name, I'll just reply with "Braves." Seems to me there's too much chance at least one of the three will stumble into an uncharacteristic bad outing or will pitch well with no run support. Then the whole thing's ruined.

Everybody talks about postseason experience, but someone needs to tell me a lot more exactly what postseason experience is worth. If Jeremy Bonderman faces Greg Maddux in the World Series, are the Tigers wasting their time taking the field? Can't some team talk Jack Morris out of retirement every October? Seems I remember playoff sensations like Josh Beckett and Bret Saberhagen whose postseason experience amounted to exactly nothing. Plus, I can just reply "Braves" to this one too.

Yeah, someone should do a serious study on this stuff and maybe here at Baseball Info Solutions we will, if we can ever find the time. ("I ain't got enough jam." - Mick Jagger.)

Anyway, to get back to the subject, Nate Robertson is what the Tigers have left after Jim Leyland shot his load Sunday afternoon by spending Kenny Rogers trying his best to avoid the Yankees. Not that I think Kenny Rogers would've pitched any better than Robertson will. Not that I think Leyland made the wrong decision. But, rest assured, no one is going to question 2006's biggest Sacred Cow and resident God's Gift To Managing. I'm still questioning Leyland's exile of April hottie Chris Shelton for "proven veteran lefthanded bat" Sean Casey (184 Tiger at-bats of .245/.286/.364). Could Shelton possibly have hit any worse?

Twins/A's? A case for this winner beating the Yanks (or the Tigers?) is that anything can happen in the playoffs. Everyone (who is this "everyone" anyway?) tries to project a season's worth of performance into a short series and that doesn't work. Crappy hitters and pitchers get hot all the time for seven games. Great hitters and pitchers go ice-cold all the time for seven games. And it has little to do with character, clutch ability, or youth versus experience. The most underrated factor in baseball is pure chance. Pure chance shines brighest in the now-or-never of the postseason.

I'll leave it to you guys to analyze and predict. I'll sit back and watch the cards fall (did I mean Cards fall? no), because, frankly, I have no idea what's going to happen. Remember how dead-as-a-doornail the 2005 White Sox appeared shortly before last year's playoffs? That could be the 2006 Cardinals. Or it could not. The Subway Series could pan out as I think most will predict, but it could just as easily be Dodgers/Tigers.

Personally, I hate playoffs. Give me justice over manufactured excitement any day. If I were in charge (don't worry), I'd lump everyone into one big division, play 162 games and declare the team on top the champ. Thank goodness the Dodgers, Pads and Phillies ended up with decent records because early on in their big dogfight I couldn't stop thinking, "call this exciting if you want, but do any of these teams really belong in the playoffs?"

I hear suggestions all the time about adding more playoff teams (puh-lease). If I could change anything, I'd add more playoff games. Go back to those 10 and 15-game series they'd play for the titles a couple turn of the centuries ago. That would make me feel better about the annual crowned champ. Pass me the ketchup and tabasco.

From: "scott pianowski" <spianow@gmail.com>
Date: October 3, 2006 12:17:59 PM EDT
To: Steve Moyer, salfino@comcast.net
Subject: Re: Mini Baseball Postseason Breakfast

Disclaimer up front - I've been buried in football for about 5-6 six weeks after giving baseball my undivided attention for 4-5 months. So if I sound like I just got kicked in the head by Albert Haynesworth and start spewing gibberish, it's not a coincidence.

One of these days we'll have to put our heads together and figure out what really does win the playoffs, if anything. Steve's done a nice job (as usual) dispelling some of the commonly held bullshit. But there has to be a better way to build your mousetrap, right?

One pet peeve of mine is the fact that October baseball doesn't always resemble what they play for six months. Too many off days. Too many night games in potentially-crappy weather. Fifth starters and low-end bullpen guys no longer exist. Depth means a lot less. The stuff that wins in July doesn't always win in October, and that doesn't seem right.

The sociologist in me can't see the Tigers testing the Yankees. Detroit's giveaway in the Central was a choke for the ages - swept at home by the Royals? - and everyone in that dugout knows the Yankees have a much better roster. Laugh at you want at first half/second half splits, but Nate Robertson has tanked in the second half of every season and I don't see him having much left (good luck against the roto team New York submits as an everyday lineup). The Yankee staff has all sorts of holes and uncertainty, but Detroit isn't going to expose them. The Tigers will drop the first two, and maybe get one at home. Next question.

I'm obsessively intrigued about the Twins. They've got the best starter, the best bullpen, a significant home-field edge, and they're sound defensively. And this isn't the banjo-hitting group we saw a few years ago, with Joe Mauer, Justin Morneau and Michael Cuddyer all making the leap. I think they'll dispatch Oakland easily and give the Yankees a heckuva series for the pennant. Or maybe I'm taking those Murray Slaughter blog posts too seriously.

Mike can tell us where the psyche of the Mets is right now, with Pedro (predictably) breaking just outside of the warranty. Orlando Hernandez and Tom Glavine to open? Didn't those guys break in with Koosman and Matlack? It probably won't matter because I think New York's lineup should punish the thin Dodger pitching (we all knew Brad Penny wasn't going to last), but if San Diego dispatches St. Louis quickly and has Jake Peavy lined up (with his contacts in), I'd be worried in Queens. I'm also not sold on some of Willie Randolph's strategy, but maybe that's an overrated thing. Players win games most of the time, right?

I don't think St. Louis has any shot, even with Carpenter and Pujols. Weak bullpens and October don't mix. Not that it bothers me one iota watching their genius lose.

The heart wants to see Minnesota-San Diego (so do the, ahem, investors). The head feels the Yankees aren't going to be denied, even with the worst post-season staff I think they've had in the last 10 years (you can take the Pianow out of New England but you can't take the New England paranoia out of Pianow). But after listening to you guys bat this around, I'll probably want to change my answers.

First pitch in 50 mintues or so. I'm definitely skipping school today.

From: Michael Salfino <salfino@comcast.net>
Date: October 3, 2006 1:05:18 PM EDT
To: pianowski <spianow@gmail.com>, Steve Moyer
Subject: Re: Mini Baseball Postseason Breakfast

I can't believe the A's have to play at 10 a.m. for them. The small market teams get screwed every way in baseball. I know no one cares about A's-Twins, but kids can't even watch the games on TV because they're too early. But it doesn't seem like baseball really has a long-term marketing strategy. I don't understand the reasons why every game has to be a national telecast. Can't they play A's-Twins tonight at 8 p.m. EST and put it on in those markets instead of Yanks-Tigers?

Maybe I'm just ticked about having my comforting NFL Short Cuts Tuesday loop ruined. It's semi-autistic the way I sit here with the same games playing over and over. (Rocking in my chair) "Ten minutes to Mangini. Ten minutes to Mangini...."

Here's what I don't understand about the Leyland thing: don't you want to play the better team in the shortest possible series? I guess there was a slim chance that the Twins could have beaten the Yanks, but if you're Detroit you have to expect to do it yourself. Five games is much better than seven, as Steve points out. And you needed to have Bonderman out there in game one of any series (even though he's so seemingly unlucky every year that I'm beginning to suspect he's just not that good).

The savvy veteran myth is crying out to be busted everywhere but especially in baseball. Shelton should not have been given the heave ho. Everyone slumps and Sean Casey has no pop left at all (having had very little to begin with). Heck, I'd rather have Dmitri Young out there than Casey.

What about Todd Jones? Can you imagine him going up against Abreu, Sheffield, Matsui and A-Rod (batting sixth!) in a one-run game? He had 28 Ks in 64 innings? Is that a misprint?

The Yankees pen is a real problem. Torre says he's not pitching Rivera in the eighth inning. He must secretly believe he's going to be up 10-4 every game and he may well be right.

I thought that the winner of A's-Twins needed a sweep so they could get two starts out of Santana or Haren. But Haren's not pitching until Game 3? Why? Yeah, he's been better at home, but the road peripherals are there. I'm not a big Zito fan, though it looks like I'll be watching him a lot in Flushing the next five years. What would Tommy Lasorda have done with Santana in the postseason? Two days rest? Relief on the off days? Hershiser in '88?

The Mets have the better defense, bullpen and (just barely) lineup. The starting pitching is a wash. Everyone is hitting the panic button, but the Mets will win that series in four. There's going to be a lot of steals in that series because neither catcher can throw. I think Jose Reyes becomes a national story next week. And I love Reyes because the Moneyball-brigade always discounts his value.

I've saved the worst for last. I have no feel at all for St. Louis and San Diego. I'd like to know why Jake Peavy didn't have better stats. I look at his numbers and feel like he can go toe-to-toe with Carpenter. But Peavy always seems to blow up when something goes against him. Heck, he did that last year against the Cardinals.

I like San Diego in that series simply because they've been playing so much better. But one game turns that around in a hurry. Still, the Cards can't run (which is weird to write, given St. Louis' history), so they can't exploit Piazza well enough with the running game. The winner of Mets-Dodgers will absolutely embarrass Piazza with seven or even 10 steals in a game. We might see the catcher get pulled.

The Mets use that AL-like lineup and bullpen to advance (who does LA call upon in the seventh and eight innings?). Then they dispatch the Padres in six. The Yanks slug their way through Detroit in four and the A's in six (but I'd love to see the A's upset a superior team in the playoffs and shut up all the Beane bahsers). Finally, the Yanks smack the Mets around in five brutal games that 80 percent of the public will tune out.

From: "scott pianowski" <spianow@gmail.com>
Date: October 3, 2006 1:17:15 PM EDT
To: "Michael Salfino", Steve Moyer
Subject: clocks to close


Because my reply was the shortest (and flimsiest), I'm trying to steal the last word. I heard you could run on Salfino, too.

There's no easy way around the starting times with respect to the young fans. The Minnesota kids miss the early game (and midgame, I guess), while the New York kids wake up and say "Dad, who won?" In a perfect world they'd play all weekend games during the daytime, but they're not flushing all that easy money.

Good point on the A's playing at 10 a.m. body-time, which is ridiculous. I think this affects a lot of football teams adversely, something I want to actually study someday, whenever I get off my ass and roll up my sleeves. But it will be after 1 p.m. body time, I can assure you of that.

Gametime. Hey Moyer, did you want that bagel?