More New York City public-school kids are passing standardized English tests in grades 3 through 8, according to test results released yesterday, and City Schools Chancellor Joel Klein is given a platform on the front of today's News from which to characterize the results as a product of Mayor Michael Bloomberg's assertion of mayoral control of the school system, which has resulted in greater accountability for education workers for test-score performance. It's an important argument for Mr. Klein because the 2002 law abolishing the Board of Education is up for renewal in June by the State Legislature, which is now far less friendly to the former Republican mayor than it was when the law was passed, and whose leaders owe much to the political support of the United Federation of Teachers, which has always opposed mayoral control. It's interesting to see this story on the front of the News, when it's generally been the Post that has been covering the dispute over education policy between the mayor and UFT head Randi Weingarten (with that incredible photo-montage logo of Ms. Weingarten manipulating a Pinocchio marionette over the legend, "PUPPET MASTER"). To flag the story, the News gives the largest type on the page to the words "SCORES SOAR," with the subhead: "Klein: Reading success tied to mayoral control." When you get inside, opponents of mayoral control are given their chance to talk back to Mr. Klein, pointing out that the city was actually only in the middle of the pack among many New York cities that improved their scores and do not have mayoral control (Buffalo!) and pointed to things like "staff development" for the improvements. It's all fair enough.

Kiefer Sutherland, who we read yesterday was going to book himself in with the police for head-butting Proenza Schouler cofounder Jack McCollough at a party Monday night, in fact did do that yesterday. He also ordered in Thai food and seemed to be in a good mood. He had nothing to say. Neither, really, did anyone else. So why is this on Page 1? He's got a court date scheduled for June 22, so let's lay off Kiefer on the cover until the 23rd.

New York Post: The murder of Wesleyan student Johanna Justin-Jinich in a Wesleyan bookstore in broad daylight was pretty shocking. Seven bullets were fired at the young woman at near point-blank range, according to reports; after ditching a wig used as a sort of disguise at the bookstore, the suspect in the case, Stephen Morgan, hung out outside the store among the rubberneckers and even spoke to police, giving them his phone number, before making his getaway. Neither the suspect nor the victim is from New York, but there is a city angle here (besides the fact that anything in Connecticut can arguably be classified a suburb of New York, if you stretch the meaning far enough): They met at a summer class at New York University, and it was here that Mr. Morgan developed what looks, from diaries collected from his abandoned car by police, like an obsession with the victim. "His deadly obsession," reads the headline, which sounds a little bit like the title of an awful erotic thriller. Then: "Chilling e-mails in co-ed slay."

A short digression: When will the term "co-ed," which is only used in true-crime contexts, finally go away? Surely it's pretty unremarkable that girls are allowed to go to college with boys at this point. One reason, which really only explains its use in print (it's used all the time in television true-crime programming, too), might be that it says so much in so little space: It tells you that the victim was a college student, usually at a residential college, so it creates the entire background setting. "Chilling e-mails in slaying of Wesleyan undergrad" is not as economical. Still, we think the word is almost getting a campy taint, and in a story that really has to be serious, even reverential, it sticks out as weird.

The Post is not the winner on this story on the merits. They publish more interviews than the News today, but most of it amplifies the basic story available everywhere. And as usual, the News is better on the police-procedural side of the story. It's purely a different measure of the story's interest level that puts it on the front page of the Post today, and not the News. And there is plenty here. The victim is a beauty; the suspect looks deranged. The journals recovered in the suspect's car are full of the kind of insane and outrageous scrawling that raises the body temperature of a certain kind of sensationalist consumer. And to top it all off, both victim and suspect appear to be from "good" families, which allows readers to indulge in a little bit of armchair criminology. It's like an episode of Law & Order, and in fact, you can expect to see this story play out at "Hudson University" before the next season is over, we'll wager.

Back to Manny: The Post, if its front-page treatment of the steroid-scandal story is any indication, has no qualms about presenting the straight news to readers even if it's old news to them. Why not? Because if their take is funny enough on the cover, people will still want to read everything they've got on it. "GIRLIE MANNY" is not one of the paper's best, but it's pretty aggressive! "Drug cheat Ramirez took female hormone." There's a little teaser, too, which leads: "Now this is female trouble." So the Post decided to ride the fact that the drug Mr. Ramirez is accused of taking is a women's fertility drug very hard. Never mind the fact that use of this drug is fairly common among people who abuse steroids to improve performance; aside from the fact that that information is widely available, why would it have been put on the "banned" list by major-league baseball if it weren't? We do wonder if a less eccentric player—one with, for instance, short hair—caught out using this stuff would be treated quite the same way. It's a bit as if he innocently had asked for a Barbie doll for his third birthday. Of course it's all coy. But it proves something: A funny angle, even if it's not important or even counterfactual, can be enough to make print coverage relevant even when its limitations put it behind the 24-hour news cycle.

General observations: We started today's Wood War asking about how the speed of the news cycle affects how newspapers sell stories you've already heard about to morning readers, and today provides a perfect example of the two New York tabloids' approaches to the problem. The News, acknowledging the fact that it is not actually giving you news you haven't already heard (after all, if you didn't know, you wouldn't really be able to make sense of their Ramirez display), sacrifices all its urgency and gives us limp analysis. The Post, stoutly refusing to give up its perch as the purveyor of new information even in the face of the facts, puts a camp spin on the story and sells it as a Day 1 story. What does this tell us? Probably not much, except it suggests that maybe the tabloids need to work on entertaining audiences by talking about the news. If the treatment entertains, there might actually be a lower bar for new information. Analysis is not, usually, very entertaining. (Ha! Hoist on our own petard!)

Let's just get this out of the way: Kiefer Sutherland on the front page of the News was wasted space. But we're not inclined to hold that against the News; the two papers seem to be taking turns mishandling this thing on their covers. So let's just forget about Kiefer and hope the tabloids do, too. That leaves us to match up the Post's selling of the Wesleyan murder story against the News' test-score story. It's probably the case that each paper did the right thing here for its own purposes. The News, in its relentless localness, would have to privilege a story about public schools over one about a murder at Wesleyan. And aside from the fact that this is an extraordinary crime story, remember that the Post usually likes its crimes to be "shocking," from an elitist point of view. The News can't treat Wesleyan University any differently from Queens College; this is the paper that doesn't "see" those kinds of class differences. Whereas the Post likely felt compelled to give this the front page precisely because the victim was a student at an elite Eastern university. The Post can also be fairly confident that one day of putting Joel Klein on the front page of the News is not going to steal its thunder on the schools issue, on which the Post has lately been killing the competition. I'm calling these two stories a draw, because neither could have done what the other did and had as good a front page. So it's down to the Manny Ramirez story.

Winner: New York Post.

Yesterday, we appreciated the News' decision to commit space on the wood to the ongoing travails of the M.T.A., but counseled them to offer readers results right on the front page. We even suggested that the headline ought to read "$2.25," the price it looked like negotiations would establish as the base fare in the New York City Transit system. Well, maybe the Post was reading! Because, after the fare became official in Albany talks that completed on deadline last night, that's what the newspaper chose for it's biggest-type headline at the bottom of the page. The subhead: "Official: Your new subway fare." There! Couldn't have been simpler.

And, now, for the City's Shame: For the fifth time in a row, the Yankees have lost to the Boston devil. The Post gives us a nice little refer of Joba Chamberlain, who seems to be just completing a telling temple-massage of despair.

New York Daily News: Let's begin at the end: the News puts Joba and the Yankees story in exactly the same place as the Post, on the lower-left in a small box. That seems about right! And their headline is better. The Post had "Yanks fall again to Sox," while the News went with "Yanks drop 5th in row to Sox."

Everybody had this Kiefer Sutherland story late yesterday. Here's the rundown: At a late-night party after the Costume Institute ball at the Met Monday night, Kiefer Sutherland headbutted Proenza Schouler cofounder Jack McCollough after the two had an altercation at downtown celebrity moth-flame Submercer. The story also appears in Page Six this morning, but the News went frontal on it; there are six reporting and writing credits attached to the story inside. It paid off: Among the details delivered in the News story were that the altercation began after Mr. McCollough bumped into Brooke Shields; that the two argued for a while; carries quotes from Mr. McCollough's interview with police in the misdemeanor assault case; blind quotes from Mr. Sutherland's friends; and the news, from Ms. Shields' representatives, that far from appreciating television's Jack Bauers bid for gallantry, she may be speaking to police today to support Mr. McCollough's version of the events. The News decided to pursue this as a celebrity and crime story, broke it out of the gossip columns and gave it some space. The problem is the sale of the story on the wood: "Kiefer head-butts designer." If you don't already know something about the story, it sounds like it might be some kind of metaphor; the smiling picture of Mr. Sutherland confuses things further. This story needed more display to be sold, but there wasn't room for it on the front this morning. Why? Because of this headline: "FINALLY! FARE DEAL DONE: Albany pact derails MTA doomsday hikes, but riders will still pay more." There is a picture of a train, the same picture of a train that everybody has been attaching to these faceless M.T.A. stories for months now. It's a pretty big picture! And once again, the News opts for a processy headline about Albany instead of a consumery, news-you-can-use angle aimed at riders.

General observations: Let's do the small thing first: We've talked before about the differential treatment of bad news about the Yankees on the front pages of the News and the Post; here it's like the Post resisted driving in a final nail, and the Post suffers for it. We're getting a little tired of these giant plays of secondhand news from Vanity Fair on the front page of the Post, too, but that is probably too much a media-insider complaint: The piece will play well, and feels gossipy and relatable. The better story is the Kiefer Sutherland story, for roughly the same market; why didn't the Post hustle on that? Not clear; maybe the story couldn't be broken out of Page Six and therefore had to comply with the strict word-count limits and constricting design of that format. Either way, the story inside the Post didn't belong on the cover. It should have belonged there! And if it had, the Post would likely have done a lot better than the News selling the thing. In fact, with the much better, more compact headline about the M.T.A., the Post gets as much bang out of the news—probably more—than the News did just by devoting acres to it so that it could type out a long headline that missed the point of contact with its readers.

Winner: New York Post.

Jacoby Ellsbury’s steal of home in Sunday night’s game – with New York third baseman Cody Ransom standing so far away from Ellsbury that he couldn’t have identified him in a police lineup -- didn’t end the season for the New York Yankees, but if things continue like this for much longer, Yankee fans will look back on it as if it had.

This team is a $200 million mess with several semi-pro players on the roster and an aging superstructure on the verge of collapse. Alex Rodriguez is due back soon, but the Yankees’ season may well be over by then. Meanwhile, there’s one possible shot in the arm that could start a reversal in their fortunes. As we go to press, it looks as if Phil Hughes will be starting Tuesday night against the Tigers at Detroit. It’s about time.

If American sports’ most valuable franchise ($1.5 billion according to a recent Forbes assessment) had a modicum of wit to match its wealth, Hughes would have started the season on the Yankees roster.

Two years ago, when he was the second-youngest player in the American League, Hughes was looked on as the hottest pitching prospect in the Bronx since ... well, probably ever.  He was built like a younger, slightly taller Roger Clemens, with virtually the same mechanics – the same repertoire and velocity. “The Pocket Rocket,” they were calling him. There seemed no limit to what Hughes could do.  The excitement that surrounded him was much like the hype that greeted Joba Chamberlain a few months later.  They were, potentially, the two greatest young pitchers to come along at the same time ever in Yankee history.

The radar gun on Hughes’s early appearances put him at just under 97 mph on a four-seam fastball, and the slow ball he threw off that pitch was referred to by then-Yankees pitching coach Ron Guidry as “a knee buckler” – batters would bend at the knee trying to follow the ball as it broke down and then, as if frozen in place, watch it drop over the plate for an embarrassing strike. 

Hughes’s promise seemed on the verge of deliverance on May 1 of 2007 when he threw a no-hitter for 6 1/3 innings before sustaining what the injury report called a “Grade 1 hamstring strain.”  Hughes didn’t think it required rehab, but 24 days later he sprained an ankle during a conditioning exercise. The docs slapped a Grade 3 on that one and Hughes was out of the lineup for 3 ½ months.

He’s never quite been able to put it back together, though he finished the 2007 season with a 5-3 record, striking out 58 and walking just 29 in 72.2 innings. He finished the season with a fine bit of relief in the ALDS against Cleveland, giving up three hits and striking out six in 5 2/3 innings. But he had a miserable 2008 in every sense, losing all four of his decisions with a 6.62 ERA.  The cheering postseason news was that it may not have been his fault:  tests later revealed that he had pitched with a stress fracture in a rib, which caused him to work in pain. After rehab and the addition of a smart cut-fastball to his armament, his strikeout ratio shot back up – 38 Ks in 30 innings in the Arizona fall league. Hopes resumed for the season.

And what did the Yankees do?  They signed 37-year-old Andy Pettitte to fill out the starting rotation. Pettitte has gone 43-36 over the past three seasons and was 14-14 last year, and you know he’s not going to pitch much better than that this year.  If the Yankees had guts and imagination, Phil Hughes would be in the starting rotation now instead of waiting to see if Chien-Ming Wang’s April swoon is permanent or temporary.

If the Yankees organization had just a single person with vision, it would be understood that Hughes is worth taking a chance on, that he has the potential to be the Yankees’ future and that he is giving the Yankees absolutely no return for the enormous investment they’ve put into him simply by filling few extra seats for his starts in Trenton.

What you can’t help wondering is why, up to now, it wouldn’t have been possible to prepare him for a slot in the starting five with some on-the-job training in the bullpen?  Why, exactly, did we have to wait to see if Wang’s arm fell off before Hughes was given a chance to pitch?

When I popped this question to pitching coach Dave Eiland – who does not set but merely reflects the Yankees’ strategy -- his response was, “We want him to be a starter, and the best way to do that is to find him starts, not use him out of the bullpen.” O.K., fine, but how do you “find” starts for a pitcher?  The only way Hughes would have gotten chances is if Wang or someone else failed, and then what?  In other words, the Yankees have been operating in their usual crisis-management mode, and after the weekend’s Red Sox disaster, it’s crisis time.

Before the Boston Red Sox series, the Yankees, particularly Brian Cashman, had become pretty arrogant about their long-time sore spot, pitching. “I think we’ve got the best starting rotation in the league,” Cashman was heard to say just a week ago. They do if C.C. Sabathia settles down, if A.J. Burnett doesn’t get injured, if Joba Chamberlain lives up to his great potential, if Andy Pettitte pitches a little better at 37 than he did at 36, and – biggest if of all – if Chien-Ming Wang rediscovers how to make his sinker sink.

That’s a lot of ifs, and Phil Hughes is a big if, too.  But he’s a gamble that can pay off in a major way, one that could turn an entire season around.  Hughes could be that good; just two short years ago everyone in the Yankees organization thought that was the case.   They could have made him part of a package deal for Johan Santana, and they chose not to.

Now’s the time to start justifying that decision by handing him the ball. 

Tonight begins a three-game series between the New York Yankees and the Boston Red Sox, and the News flags Mike Lupica's column as "The big preview." It's a narrative about narrative! "The Red Sox vs. the Yankees is never bad. It wasn't last year even though the Rays beat both of them and the Yankees finally produced a $200 million team that wasn't good enough to make the playoffs. But maybe this season the rivalry goes back to being great again, and the narrative we always want has both of them back at the top of the AL East." But one of the big villains in the piece is the new Yankee Stadium, which he thankfully observes is not where the two teams are facing off tonight: The fact that this is all starting at Fenway guarantees the old story line we all want. What happens when the action moves here? According to Lupica, it means fans catching more fly balls than fielders do.

As long as we've got some Yankees action to flag, the News gives a little box to its reporting on the Mets: "[Jerry] Manuel suggested changes to the rotation could be in the offing after each pitcher is given one more opportunity. A team insider later elaborated that no one, aside from Johan Santana, has immunity."

New York Post: In thi$ economy, even the animal$ are $uffering! Wow, that never gets old. We'll explain in a bit. O.K.! So the Bronx Zoo yesterday informed a committee of the City Council that a budget shortfall was going to force them to close some exhibits and move some animals to other zoos where more people like them. Shakeup in the captive-animal kingdom! The Post decides to characterize these as layoffs: See, that means they can drag a business-reporting conceit all the way through the article! "Economy's so beastly ... BRONX ZOO FIRES ANIMALS!" Of course if everyone getting fired these days were placed in other jobs automatically, where people had money to pay them, instead of being dumped on the street and stripped of the company car lease, then unemployment would not be such a big deal. But these animals (which include deer, bats, porcupines, foxes, lemurs, caimans and antelopes) will all be given new homes where the zoo won't have to come up with $15 million this year to keep them. O.K., besides "beastly" in the headline, there is the lead: "Situation wanted: will work for hay." Oh boy. More: "Wild-fired from the zoo." Huh? Perhaps not the ideal headline as actual wildfires threaten actual human lives in South Carolina. And also! A handy little series of "cover letters" from some of the animals getting the boot. The Arabian Oryx is "the perfect mammal for these terrorist times because it speaks" both Arabic and Hebrew. Chuckle? No, us either. For what it's worth, on Morning Joe this morning, the piece was a big hit with Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough, who gamely played along with the Post's "pink slip" conceit.

Spring is sprung, the grass is riz. And the front page is where the sports stories is! A doubleheader (sorry!) at the top of the page flags the section in general: We've got an NFL Draft preview from Steve Serby and a teaser for  pre-game coverage of this weekend's series between the Yanks and the Red Sox. No mention of the Mets' blues. Wait a minute, what's the headline? "Yanks vs. Red Sox: Analysis of this weekend's series." Are we still reading the News? Here's what Mike Vaccaro wrote inside: "Tonight is as good a time as any for Joba Chamberlain to remind everyone who he is, what he is, how important he is to the Yankees and how vital he will be to the next generation of the Yankees-Red Sox rivalry." So why not "JOBA JUICE" for the headline, then "Makes his case in weekend series" or "Yanks vs. Red Sox" or something? It's like somebody hadn't gotten a smoke break in too long and despaired of actually writing the display for this refer.

We're awfully busy at the Post today, because we've talked about three stories and there is still one more left! "State Dems' junket $hock," reads the headline, and the article begins with a jump to the inside explaining a junket that the evil overlord of the Democrat-controlled State Senate is planning even as the local economy tanks. (We always read that "$" substituted for "S," a favorite Post ploy, with a li$p.) The tin-eared majority leader, Malcolm Smith, seemed not to catch a "Rome is burning" reference to his fiddling, and what's worse, he suggested that taxpayer money would fund the trips to Puerto Rico, China and India before backing off and saying attending senators would be paying for themselves. (In which case, we suspect, no junket anymore!)

General observations: Wow, did the Daily News oversell. We're struggling. When what's inside is this far from what's advertised, is there a penalty? We are going to make an argument for "yes." O.K., you've got me to pick up the Daily News  because I think I am going to see pictures of a murderer doing Jell-O shots, and then they are not there. What happens the next time you advertise a GIANT COLLECTION OF SHOCKING PHOTOS INSIDE? All wood is overwritten, all of it is oversell. But it has to be the right level of oversell. If we put this up against the BRONX ZOO story in the Post? Well. Taking a story like this, one of the more mundane effects of the present recessionary economy, and turning it into a conversation piece is one of the great magical powers of the Post. To us, this one fell flat. Do you believe anyone will be standing around saying, "Can you believe the recession has gotten SO BAD that the Bronx Zoo is firing its animals?" Actually, never mind. This morning, Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski did just that when they held this cover up. So let's give the Post this one. But we are handing out a disciplinary notice on the Yankees headline; not that the News did any better.

Also, dear reader, apologies for the lateness this morning.

Winner: New York Post

This year, all the hullabaloo about A-Rod’s dalliances, the ascension of the Steinbrothers and the readying of the stadium for eBay makes one wistful for the old days when the Yankees could be seen on the streets with scarves and top hats. Maybe the Yankees need to be reminded there are still people who listen to their games on the radio.

You heard the bemoaning early—“This team is as good as done”—but it seemed for most of the year that they were more done than good.

The phrase makes you wonder, especially as they go into Boston, where historically the behavior of both sets of fans (and sometimes the players) has inclined towards problematic— how good has the team been? I don’t mean how effective or triumphant, but as compared to their rivals, how good have they been? Could one measure their virtue and while we’re at it, show whether virtue pays off?

Some will say that sports is a business and therefore the question is irrelevant. For others who truly appreciate the dignity of the game, the question could have restorative power—redemptive implications.

One could assert that this is what Nietzsche labeled a “slave morality.” Only now that the Yankees are done do we attempt to divert attention from the most powerful to the question of goodness.

One could look at the charities of the respective teams, or how often the players flipped a three-dollar ball to the kids in the cheap seats. But the most obvious on-the-field event that one should use to consider character is the hit-by-pitch statistic.

The hit-by-pitch statistic is an important one in the sociology of sports because it is the most violent event in baseball, and the thing that players do to take things into their own hands. Sometimes balls just get away from the pitcher, other times managers call for retaliatory “bean balls” to protect their players, but sometimes players’ egos make them fire away on their own.

Given the intensity of the rivalry between the Red Sox and the Yankees, these events are particularly pregnant for consideration.

In the last 16 years, the Yankees have played other American league teams 2,283 times in the regular season. Individual Yankee batters have appeared before those other teams 90,567 times. Of those plate appearances, 772 have resulted in a hit Yankee— a percentage of .85 percent of the time.

That may not look like a lot, but ask some of the recipients of those 772 and they will probably tell you that they would have preferred to hit the ball, than have it be the other way around.

Over the same time period, 88,221 of the opposite teams’ batters have appeared before Yankee pitchers and 749 have left slightly battered, for the same rate of .85 percent.

That parity is by no means enough to decide that the mighty Yankees are just as Other-regarding (or non-Other-regarding) than their opponents. It could just mean that one is intentionally mean and the other is unintentionally bad, or vice versa.

In order to have these numbers point towards intentionality, we have to look at something that serves as a control for control. ERA won’t do, because it might just mean the other batters aren’t very good. Wild pitches vs. hit batsmen won’t do, because of the false positives. So to the most prosaic of statistics—(but a statistic that is as good as a hit): walks.

Over the same time period, Yankee pitchers threw 7,487 walks for a rate of 8.41 percent of the batters they faced. Their opponents threw 9,144 for a rate of 10.09 percent— meaning that although their opponents threw more bean balls, they could also point to an exculpatory reason —less control.

Then, if we wanted to get some kind of read on which is more egregious, we can create a rate by dividing the hit batsmen by walks per plate appearance in the last 16 years—the higher the number, the more questionable the behavior, because a high number of walks would explain for the high-number of HBP's and create a lower number.

In this case the Yankees pitchers have a rate of .100 whereas their opponents have a rate of .084—meaning that despite virtually the same percentage of bean balls per plate appearance, their skill on the mound should produce better less violent results.

There is room for them to be a little nicer vis-à-vis the rest of the league.

Now to the Yankees and the Red Sox—

Over those same 16 years, 9,473 Yankees have faced down the Red Sox in 244 games. 120 Yankees have been hit by pitches for a rate of 1.27 percent. For the other side: 9,481 have been up to bat and 100 have been hit for a rate of 1.05 percent.

Taking control into account by considering walks, Red Sox pitchers walk Yankee batters 9.78 percent of plate appearances, while Yankee pitchers walk Red Sox batters 9.08 percent. Their OBP's against each other are: BOS.334 and NYY.339, suggesting slightly better control on the part of Yankee pitchers over the years. Dividing hit-by-pitches by walks yields a rate of suggested egregiousness of .1156 for Yankee pitchers and a higher .1298 for Red Sox pitchers.

The Yankees may need a lesson from the rest of the league on civility and the spirit of the game, but the Red Sox should deal with their aggression towards the Yankees.

There are some pitchers who don’t hit intentionally, like knuckleballer Tim Wakefield, and there are those like Pedro Martinez, who do. Sometimes pitchers exhibit extraordinary control of their emotions: When the Yankees beat the Red Sox 22-1 on June 19, 2000, not a single batter was hit. But on May 24, 1998, six different batters were hit. Mo Vaughn hit three home runs off David Wells on Sept. 24, 1996 (granted he wasn’t with the Yankees then), and then he had a whole summer to think about them. Then, in 1997, Wells faced Vaughn 14 times and didn’t plunk him once.

Sometimes pitchers seem to have it in for certain batters—Daisuke Matsuzakas has hit A-Rod three times so far, including the first time they met. Greetings! Manny got hit three times in one game this year on July 5, twice by Mike Mussina and once by Mariano Rivera. People who insist that HBP's are not personal always point to what a nice guy Craig Biggio is, and the fact that Gary Sheffield is not higher on the all time HBP list (he’s 34th). But even when an individual’s psychological wiring doesn’t inspire or give meaning to an action, the culture around it can. Perhaps that explains how Giambi can be hit 15 times in 10 years by the Red Sox alone.

The question of the efficacy of hitting batters is in need of examination. Some pitchers might believe that hitting the batter helps them “get the plate back.” In some cases, depending on the player, it may. Prior to being hit by Jeff Weaver on July 27, 2003, Nomar Garciaparra was 10-20 with 5 HRs against him—after, he dropped down to 3-14 with only one home run.

On the other hand, prior to being hit with a ball, Derek Jeter hit .242 with 2 home runs against the pitchers who would later hit him. After being hit, against those he faced again (all except one), he hit .307 with 8 home runs. In general, plunking a batter has not intimidated Yankee or Red Sox batters. One might have thought that players would back off the plate after being hit. But, in the last 10 years, of the 141 batters that came up again after having been hit, only 82 (.418 OBP) made an out the next time up, including only 20 strikeouts.

In the last 10 years in 183 games between the Red Sox and the Yankees, the team who hit more batters has only won 33 times; the pitcher who ended up winning only hit a batter 30 times—16.3 percent.

Of the 181 events where batters were hit, the next batter to come up to the plate struck out 30 times and made an out 101 times (including the strikeouts) for a .441 OBP average. This compares with a combined OBP average for the Yankees and Red Sox when a runner was on base over the last 10 years of .347.

We might think that the batter on deck wouldn’t have enough time to think about how much pitches sting before coming to the plate. But, the batter “in the hole” watching from the dugout would. The second batter after the original hit batter made an out 120 times, a .337 OBP—10 points less than the combined OBP average with runners on base— and struck out 29 times.

The neo-classical Yankees would do well to consider all this because it suggests that goodness and success are not mutually exclusive. In fact, the game may even reward those who extend kindness to their rivals.

From the start, most of the hype surrounding the game has been about the venue, rather than individuals or even team rivalries. But at every point, the Yankees were the story. During pregame introductions, Yankees were cheered, of course, Red Sox were booed, and everyone else received largely indifferent responses.

Once the game began, the fans rose up with a chant in memory of Bobby Murcer. This was quickly followed by “Red Sox suck,” despite the fact that on this night, Red Sox and Yankees played for the same team.

Derek Jeter took the early lead for MVP honors, singling in the bottom of the first, and promptly stole second base. After a Josh Hamilton strikeout, Alex Rodriguez stepped to the plate with a chance to put the American League on the board. But Rodriguez popped out to the catcher, and the stadium sat back down collectively.

Jeter had another chance to play the hero with one on and nobody out in a scoreless game in the third. But the normally patient Jeter went after the first pitch, grounding into a double play. Rodriguez then led off the bottom of the fourth by striking out, and their window for redemption quickly closed. Rodriguez left to a nice hand with one out in the fifth, Jeter with one out in the sixth to a more sustained ovation.

That left it up to Mariano Rivera to play the hero, and the Yankee closer tried his best. But before he had the chance, J.D. Drew hit a two-run homer in his first All-Star at-bat after replacing Ichiro Suzuki in right field.

By the time Rivera entered the game in the ninth, the teams were tied at three, the National League had one on and one out, and the loudest ovation of the night went to Rivera, who jogged into the game to his traditional “Enter Sandman,” and promptly induced a strike-him-out-throw-him-out double play to retire the side.

Yankee Stadium had seen this script before. Now was the time for the home team to strike, making a winner of Rivera. But Ryan Dempster had other ideas, striking out the side to force extra innings.

Rivera returned for his second inning. Though the National League loaded the bases with one out, Rivera induced a double play from Dan Uggla, who earned whatever the opposite of MVP is in the game with three errors, and twice failing to get a lead run in from third base with one out.

Now Rivera not only stood to be the winning pitcher, but his 1 2/3 innings of shutout ball made him a good candidate to be named MVP. Yankee Stadium would have the appropriate sendoff. And two of Uggla’s errors made that ending even more certain, putting runners on first and third with nobody out. An intentional walk loaded the bases with none out, and victory seemed moments away for the American League.

It was not to be. Three straight groundouts, and on to the eleventh. The Rivera-as-hero story was dead.

The top of the fifteenth briefly offered New York Mets fans redemption. The only two Met representatives had done poorly, with Billy Wagner allowing the American League to tie the game at three in the eighth inning, and David Wright, inserted into the game as Designated Hitter, striking out each of his first two at-bats. But in the fifteenth, with two outs, Wright faced Scott Kazmir, the Mets prospect who was given away to Tampa Bay for Victor Zambrano. Kazmir, however, offered four wide ones to Wright. A Cristian Guzman groundout ended the inning.

So that left the bottom of the fifteenth, where J.D. Drew’s walk, his fourth time reaching base on the night, set the stage for the game-winning sacrifice fly by Michael Young. But Young had just one hit on the night, and two strikeouts. Drew was the easy choice.

The night ended with Drew receiving the customary car out by second base. As he was announced, the few hundred remaining fans booed him lustily. Never mind that if the Yankees make it to the World Series, Drew will be the primary reason they will get to play a Game 7 at Yankee Stadium. A game that was supposed to celebrate the Yankees ended with a Red Sox player lauded on the infield.

October, once the province of the Yankees, has become the stomping grounds of the Red Sox. Tuesday night, even Yankee Stadium, after much ado, belonged to Boston as well.

“I just got back from Iowa, where it appears we’re doing pretty good,” he told a cheering crowd estimated by his campaign to number 2,100. “It’s amazing how you go from being D.O.A. to being a genius in about three weeks,” he added with a laugh.

But Mr. Obama, who earlier in the day seemed to have his character questioned by Hillary Clinton, also sounded perfectly willing to intensify the sniping between the two. The Illinois senator deviated from his standard stump speech to imply that Bill and Hillary Clinton bore some of the responsibility for the nation’s rancorous political atmosphere.

Modifying his usual rhetorical riff on excessive partisanship, Mr. Obama said:

“I don’t want to spend the next four years re-arguing the same partisan arguments that we had all through the 1990s. I don’t want to pit red America against blue America.”

The suggestion, not for the first time, was that Mrs. Clinton’s personal and political history would render her ineffective as an agent of change. Mr. Obama touched upon this theme several times, even when he didn’t mention either Clinton by name.

Insisting that his candidacy represented a chance for the nation to come together and “actually start solving problems”, Mr. Obama added that he had in mind “problems that George Bush made far worse but that had been festering long before George Bush took office.”

Mr. Obama continued:

“George Bush made health care worse, but we have been talking about health care reform for decades now, through Democratic and Republican administrations. And we have had drug companies and insurance companies writing our health care laws instead of the American people.”

Mr. Obama also sharpened his normal exposition on the purported shortcomings of the contemporary Democratic Party—and, seemingly, of the Clinton campaign’s willingness to form political positions based on polls.

Mr. Obama evoked Democratic giants of yesteryear – JFK, FDR, Jefferson and Jackson – and claimed “they led not by calculation but by convictions.”

He then added:

“This party has been at its best when we have summoned the entire nation – not just half the nation, not just a portion of a demographic – the entire nation, around a higher goal.”

That this remark came hot on the heels of a criticism of “triangulation” – a term, and a strategy, synonymous with the Clinton presidency – left no doubt as to whom Mr. Obama had in his sights.

Predictably enough, Mr. Obama’s supporters at the $23-per-head event seemed broadly in agreement with such ideas.

David Moriarty, 46, of Cape Cod contrasted what he saw as Mrs. Clinton’s status as a “total Washington insider” with Mr. Obama’s “vision.” Mr. Moriarty added that one of the main reasons he was supporting Mr. Obama was because “he’s not for K Street.”

Jim Foley, a 74-year-old from Danvers, said that while he admired Mrs. Clinton “very much”, he believed she had “just too much baggage” to be a good bet in a general election.

Some of Mr. Obama’s more aggressive jabs at Mrs. Clinton did not receive as enthusiastic a response in the cavernous Boston venue as they have in other settings, however.

His statement, “I am not running to fulfill some long-held plan or because I think it is owed to me,” was met with silence. When he made the same observation, almost word-for-word, in Harlem’s Apollo Theater last Thursday night, laughter and cries of “I hear you!” were the response from the audience.

Mr. Obama seemed on safer ground when poking fun, as he has done frequently on the campaign trial, at the recent discovery that he is a very distant cousin of Dick Cheney.

“Everybody’s got a black sheep in the family, everybody’s got a crazy uncle in the attic,” he mused.

The Illinois senator also gave a tip of the hat – apparently mandatory for all visiting politicians – to Massachusetts’ leading sports teams: the Boston Red Sox, the New England Patriots and the Boston Celtics.

“What is it that you guys are putting in the water?” he said. “We need some of that in Chicago.”

Big enough that his status among the G.O.P. candidates as The Big Baseball Fan may have been usurped last night by Mitt Romney, a man who almost certainly can't tell the difference between a splitter and a forkball. But to casual viewers of last night's debate, it was Mr. Romney who seemed like the authentic fan and Mr. Giuliani who conjured memories of Hillary Clinton and her "lifelong Yankee fan" nonsense.

The exchange took place when a YouTube questioner, addressing the former Mayor as "Giuliani," asked Rudy if he could "explain why you being a lifelong Yankees fan, that this year, after the Yankees lost everything, you rooted for the Red Sox in the postseason? Can you explain that position to me?"

Rudy was forced to repeat his past explanation, that "I root for the American League team when they get to the World Series," a passionless assertion that even to non-sports fans had to sound insincere. Everyone understands the 24/7/365 intensity of the Red Sox-Yankees rivalry. True fans of either team aren't supposed to just put their feelings aside – ever. Do Michigan fans cheer for Ohio State in the Rose Bowl? Do North Carolina fans pull for Duke in the Final Four? Do Giants fans wear Philadelphia green and white when the Eagles outlast them in the playoffs?

Mr. Romney, standing next to Mr. Giuliani, jumped at the opening and played the role of Red Sox devotee:

"Eighty-seven long years. We waited 87 long years. And true suffering Red Sox fans that my family and I are – we could not have been more happy than to see the Red Sox win the World Series, except by being able to beat the Yankees when they were ahead three games to none. And so, I have to tell you that like most Americans, we love our sports teams and we hate the Yankees."

To casual viewers, Mr. Romney's response sounded more authentic and more human. And it's truly amazing, because Mr. Giuliani inarguably has Yankee baseball in his blood. On so many issues, he has so little in common with the G.O.P. base, but he had a good thing going for a while with his Yankee fixation. In an earlier debate, don't forget, he ridiculed Hillary Clinton to superb effect for her various absurd claims about her Yankee fandom. Now, because he tried to pander in New Hampshire, he's lost that edge.

Mr. Romney? Well, the Red Sox World Series drought he alluded to was actually 86 years (from 1918 to 2004), and not 87, like he claimed. The 86-year figure – the years of "The Curse of the Bambino" – is tattooed on the brain of every "true suffering Red Sox fan." To Red Sox Nation, Mr. Romney sounds like what he is: a typical politician feigning interest in the local sports team. But outside of Red Sox Nation, Romney hit last night's baseball question out of the park, while Giuliani struck out.

Now it is up to the Yankees, who vowed not to negotiate with Rodriguez should he opt out, to go back on their word, or suffer the consequences.

By virtue of Rodriguez’s decision, the Yankees are off the hook for the final three years and $81 million of the third baseman’s now-defunct deal. Published reports over the weekend had the Yankees set to offer Rodriguez around a 5-year, $140-150 million extension, bringing the potential total of the contract he abdicated to 8 years and $220-230 million.

Certainly, that’s a lot of money. But Boras and Rodriguez made their decision assuming they can get more than that on the open market, even if the Yankees choose not to participate in the sweepstakes. Either that, or they believe the Yankees will come to see the urgency to retaining A-Rod from a baseball standpoint, regardless of his value off the field.

It’s not an unreasonable assumption.

This season, Rodriguez hit .314, with a .422 on base percentage and .645 slugging percentage. When his on base plus slugging percentage is adjusted for his park and era (known as OPS+), he just completed the third-greatest offensive season for any third baseman in baseball history.

The league average is 100—above 100 is above average. Rodriguez in 2007 scored an OPS+ of 177. It was a better season than the finest by Mike Schmidt, or Eddie Mathews, and just below George Brett’s 1980 season, when Brett hit .390.

And for those who think it was a fluke, Rodriguez’s 2005 was the fourth-greatest ever, at an OPS of 173.

And let’s assume the Yankees let A-Rod walk. Who can take his place?

Well, the best free-agent third baseman is Mike Lowell, who manned the position for the 2007 World Champion Boston Red Sox. It’s hard to imagine they’ll jettison the 2007 World Series MVP. But in the event that the Sox choose to upgrade to Rodriguez at third base, Lowell could be available, and he is coming off of a terrific season, hitting .324/.378/.501, good for an OPS+ of 124.

However, that was supported by a batting average on balls in play of .337. His career batting average of .280 is supported by a more expected BABIP of .288. He’s a year removed from an OPS+ of 104. He’s entering his age-34 season, while A-Rod is entering his age-32 season. He’s going to want a long-term deal, too—and while Rodriguez can lose plenty from his performance while still providing positive value, Lowell has a far smaller cushion.

No one else in the free agent class is nearly at Lowell’s level. The next-best free agent third baseman is Pedro Feliz, whose slugging percentage of .418 was lower than Rodriguez’s on base percentage of .422. Feliz’s slugging percentage? 227 points lower. His 2007 OPS+ of 81 is 96 points lower than Rodriguez’s 2007—larger than the difference between Derek Jeter and Tom Glavine.

The best in-house option is better than Feliz, worse than Lowell: Wilson Betemit. His OPS+ of 101, including 80 with the Yankees, figures to improve somewhat as he enters his peak--Betemit turns 26 on November 2. But he has not displayed the ability to hit left-handed pitching—his career batting average against lefties is .232. Even a dramatic improvement leaves the Yankees with a monumental gap in production.

The only other ways to make up the offense lost by the departure of A-Rod would be by wringing improvements from returning players, or by bringing in reinforcements via free agency or trade.

Of the returning Yankees, it would be tough to expect better results in 2008 from anyone. If Jorge Posada re-signs, he is unlikely to match his career year in 2007—if he doesn’t, no catcher on the market can provide more than a fraction of his offensive value. Derek Jeter, Hideki Matsui, Johnny Damon, and Bobby Abreu will all be 34. Jason Giambi is 36. Only Robinson Cano and Melky Cabrera are good bets to improve in 2008—but those improvements may be necessary simply to balance the decline of the others, not to make up for the huge loss of A-Rod’s bat.

Even eating some of the veteran contracts and replacing them with free agents is unlikely to work—there are no offensive players close to the level of the Yankees’ own free agents Posada and Rodriguez.

And any trade partner able to provide a top-tier offensive player will almost certainly demand one of the Yankees’ top pitching prospects: Joba Chamberlain, Philip Hughes or Ian Kennedy. But more likely than not, New York will be relying on all three in next year’s starting rotation.

Should they trade one of them and attempt to fill the pitching staff from free agency, the best available arm will be: mediocrity Kyle Lohse, whose career ERA+ (the pitching equivalent of OPS+) is worse than Carl Pavano’s.

And Lohse won’t come cheap, either. He’s represented by Scott Boras.

So the Yankees can hold to their vow to let A-Rod go, or they can be contenders in 2008. In this game, controlled by Scott Boras, there may be no other outcomes.

"This is the biggest flip-flop ever for him," Kellner says.