Well, I said I was mystified why no one took Carpenter that day.

Still am, too.

As far as yesterday's Cacin pick goes, you did OK because Toronto scored the same 19 as Boston with Schilling did and you saved a few cap points with Toronto, but the pick itself was nothing to be particularly proud of.

There were 7 pitching staffs that did better than Toronto did yesterday, and 3 that did as well, and of the 10 there were 6 (KC, TB, Colo, Ariz, Wash, and SD) that were less expensive than Toronto.

DB is the guy who deserves the credit for making a great PS pick yesterday.

Anyway, here's something else that I don't understand:

How come I'm the only one in this game that's interested in putting their money up to back thier judgement?

Call me whatever you want to (altho, quite honestly, I don't understand the Mike Lupica reference), but since I'm the only one here willing to play for money, I think I have the right to assume that I'm the best "real life" handicapper.

Why? Because as a "real life" gambler yourself, DC, I'm sure you'll agree with me that it's one thing to pick Chacin for free, but if you were playing this game for real money you might not be so quick to take him.

I know that's the case because I play this game exactly the way I would if it were for money - no reason not to since, as you know, I take these games quite seriously - but I can give you another example which makes my point.

I think I've mentioned that every year for the past 20+ or so I've been in a "Pick Every Game Each Week" Football Pool with about 100 other people - $10 a week, $2500 first prize, $2000 second prize, etc.

My usual strategy in that game is to pick a ton of underdogs (since most people who aren't very knowledgable tend to pick favorites and, as you know, any pool for $10 a week with 100 people in it is gonna have a lot of players who are not very knowledgable) and hope, at least to some degree, to get lucky.

It's a strategy that's served me well over the years, since I won the whole thing twice, finished second once, and last once (for which you also get a few hundred bucks), not to mention several other "in the money" finishes which I've lost track of.

BUT - and it's a big "BUT" - in the years that I've also been betting the games individually I tend to be a lot more careful nad conservative with my picks.

Not that I necessarily pick more favorites or anything, just that I pay closer attention to what's going on and, since I don't have to bet on every game, generally wind up with a higher winning percentage on the 6 or 7 games that I do actually risk maybe $50 or $100 on than I do on my overall winning percentage for all 16 games (altho that has not been the case in the years I won or finished second because for the most part I got lucky).

Oh, and just for the record, BTW....

It wasn't Chacin who scored 19 points, it was the Toronto pitching staff.

Chacin pitched 5.1 innings, and even giving him credit for the 5 points for the win, he himself scored only 11 points.

OK, but nothing spectacular.

The Toronto bullpen picked up the other 8 points in 3.2 IPs - a better rate of production even without the 5 extra points for the win.

And I'm still waiting for the first person ever to state that they consider a team's bullpen and not just the starting pitcher that day when making their PS selection.