Is it okay to root for Dusty Baker and the Astros? Barry Svrluga answered your questions.

This really gets right down to it, doesn't it? I tried to tackle the Astros' side of things in my column this morning . As one exec told me yesterday, "It's hard."

The Astros' reality is this: They developed and implemented a sign-stealing scandal during the 2017 season. They won the World Series after that 2017 season. And the four starting infielders for Game 1 tonight -- Yuli Gurriel, Jose Altuve, Carlos Correa and Alex Bregman -- were all key Astros on that team. It's hard to shake the notion that while the GM and manager were suspended and then fired, the players just rolled along. Here they are again.

But their reality is also this: They're extremely talented baseball players. They have a juggernaut of a franchise. We will never know how much they were helped by the sign-stealing, nor will we know if they would have won without it. My gut says this group was good enough to win without all the shenanigans, but who knows? It's why the scandal nags at them still.

Then there's the Dusty factor. Try to find someone in baseball who wouldn't be happy to see Dusty Baker finally win a World Series. It's darn near impossible. Is that enough to override the stench from the trash cans? That's up to the individual.

Then there's the Braves. I'll admit: I'm not sure I'm ready for a packed stadium doing the "Tomahawk Chop." It's at best anachronistic, at worst offensive, perpetuating stereotypes we should long since have dropped.

Chelsea, though, wrote a profile of Atlanta first baseman Freddie Freeman , one of the game's good guys. I can see people pulling for Freeman, the lifelong Brave. I can also see, say, Nats fans rooting against him, given how frequently he hammers the locals.

So my short answer: Tough choice. Root for good baseball and three-hour games? Sounds about right to me.

This is such a central question, and it's my belief that not only did the Dodgers hinder Scherzer by having him close Game 5 against the Giants -- meaning he ran out of gas in his first NLCS start, and then was unable to answer the bell for Game 6 -- but that they got too cute by using Julio Urias in the eighth inning of Game 2 against the Braves.

You're right about the Nats, and what's important to remember about that October of 2019 is that Washington essentially had five trustworthy pitchers -- Scherzer, Stephen Strasburg, Patrick Corbin, Sean Doolittle and Daniel Hudson (though Anibal Sanchez was certainly tremendous against the Cardinals). They pieced together a plan to get as many outs from those guys in the winnable games as they could -- and it worked. Is that the reason Strasburg, the World Series MVP, has been injured since? Is that the reason Corbin was one of the worst starters in baseball in 2020-21? Who knows?

What's worse, to me, than using starters as relievers -- perhaps to their physical detriment -- is using relievers as starters. I'm over the idea of the opener, not because it's not a decent strategy to win a specific game, but because it robs fans of one of the real appeal to the buildup: Who's pitching? That should be a central question that defines the shape of the game, the discussion around it. When the answer to "Who's pitching?" is "Everybody!", there's an appeal that's lost.

Maybe that's a crotchety, old-man take. Fine. Guilty. But I believe it.

The answer to these questions are always incredibly simple and impossibly complex: Money, and how to distribute it. The owners care about making it. The players want more of a share of it. The owners would like to limit spending. The players want nothing that could be interpreted as a salary cap. There is a lack of trust on both sides. Etc., etc., ad infinitum.

The problem with the labor impasse is that it prevents the two sides from discussing the game's real problems -- the lack of balls in play, the annual rise in strikeouts, the idea that starting pitchers only last into the fifth or sixth, the predominance of the three true outcomes (strikeout, walk and homer). The two sides should be working constructively to figure out how the game can be made more exciting and attractive to a younger generation -- or even just get it back to the version that was played in the 1980s and '90s -- rather than bickering over cash.

Will there be a work stoppage? Who knows? There's a lot riding on keeping the idea of "labor peace," because there hasn't been a strike/lockout since 1994, and the two sides like to trumpet that track record.

One exec I spoke to this week, who oversees a baseball operations department for one club, said he thought a deal will get done before spring training, but it will essentially be an extension of the current agreement with a few tweaks. So rather than addressing the core questions of how the game can maximize its popularity and appeal, the two sides will kick the can five years further down the road -- which is exactly what happened five years ago. It just leads to a recurring feeling of impending doom, which isn't healthy for the sport as a whole.

This is a great question. I cannot speak for Max and Trea, obviously, but I will say that you probably saw the reaction they had to seeing Soto behind home plate at the Wild Card game. It was like their long lost brother showed up. I think you go through a lot in one full season, particularly the beginning when the days get long and the season seems like it's never going to end. Plus, Max and Trea were also a part of Nats disappointments together. There's probably a stronger bond. Not saying they couldn't develop that with the Dodgers, but the Dodgers have a different vibe. More individual pieces than sum of their parts, in many ways. And from the outside looking in and what I've heard, I think that's probably true of their clubhouse in some ways, too.

Ugh, I don't know. Imagine if Ohtani were in this series. I guess this World Series is pretty good evidence against any kind of MLB outcome manipulation, which the conspiracy theorists toss out now and then.

In all seriousness, the star power is there -- and growing. The White Sox had two or three guys that needed one shot on the big stage to really endear themselves to people. Tatis Jr. would have been a ton of fun on this stage. Aaron Judge or Stanton or Vlad Guerrero Jr. would all have brought a ton of star power to this.

It's wild to me that Freeman isn't better known, though. That's the kind of thing I look at and say...how? He's incredibly marketable -- maybe not quite as much as Tatis or Tim Anderson or some of these guys who are just Nike commercials and highlight reels waiting to happen -- but still a really light-hearted dude who's one of the best hitters in baseball. Ronald Acuna Jr. is one of the most exciting young players around, so he would have helped. But it's still kind of wild that the star power never seems to match the stage the way it could. Honestly, I think the Angels investing in some starting pitching would go a long way, but that's obviously not the only answer here.

I think everything you said can be true. I think it would be silly to think the Astros were the only team trying to use technology to get an advantage when every team in this sport -- which has a culture of glorifying cheating in lesser ways, by the way -- is trying to get every advantage they can. That said, I personally don't have any evidence against any other team. People look into it all the time. The one thing I know is baseball is always looking for the next big thing. Whether it's sticky stuff or sign-stealing, any opening is one a team will try to take. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, or so I've heard on Law and Order.

But to your point, I think there's no doubt (especially given the splits) that this team is one of the best hitting teams of our generation, if not the best. .They're loaded. Correa and Bregman and Altuve aren't flukes. Yordan Alvarez is a star. Kyle Tucker is getting there. Michael Brantley has been one of the best contact hitters in baseball since long before Houston. They stole signs and probably benefited from it. Other teams probably stole signs and benefited too. And still, even four years later, no one hits like these Astros do.

Lot to unpack here. I think this would present some ethical dilemmas but I'm more intrigued than I should be by the idea of the goal posts being branded the Washington Posts.

Good question. I think two things: one, I think there are better in-game managers than Dusty. Two, I think it's a lot easier to measure or take stock of those and their effects than it is to measure clubhouse impact. And I think that's one reason why people look at Dusty and, in my opinion, underestimate him.

An interesting theme of the last few days has been players and executives talking about how you build a World Series team. And over and over, on the record and off, people bring up chemistry. Braves GM Alex Anthopolous last night was talking about how he doesn't know how to build a World Series team, even now, because the difference between winning and losing can be so minute. But he thinks a lot of it is the people -- for example, would the four outfielders he traded for at the deadline meshed this well elsewhere? He doesn't think so, particularly someone with a manager who wasn't as respected or trusted as Snitker managing their playing time. They're coming into contract years. No one wants to sit. But managing those personalities and keeping people feeling seen and coveted is so crucial in a long season. I think Dusty does that really well in ways people don't see -- much like Davey did in 2019.

I think one of the things that I've found impressive about Alex Cora -- who, by the way, saw some decisions backfire, too -- is that he seems to have that touch with the players and the in-game instincts that are so good you notice them. But if I'm hiring a manager, I want a manager the players respect and will trust even when decisions go wrong. Then again I am not in a position to hire a manager, and maybe there's a reason for that!

This is a good one -- and I'm so glad it matters! The two starters -- 37-year-old vet Charlie Morton for Atlanta and 27-year-old Framber Valdez for Houston -- might actually be able to pitch deep into Game 1. What a concept!

Valdez is coming off his best outing of the postseason -- and maybe the best start of the postseason -- with his eight innings of three-hit, one-run ball in Game 5 of the ALCS in Boston, the game that tilted the series in Houston's favor.

Morton won't go that deep in a game, but he's got so much postseason experience. This will be his 16th playoff start and 17th appearance -- and the matchup is fascinating given Morton was a member of the cheatin' 2017 Astros that won the whole thing. (He also pitched in last year's World Series while with Tampa.)

I've been wrong about almost all the postseason pitching matchups I've considered, so I'll let Chelsea take it from here.

I think he's a Hall of Famer. A current Hall of Famer, Tony LaRussa, thinks he's a Hall of Famer. But I don't think it's a sure thing yet. I think a title makes it one because then what's the argument against?

The Dodgers and the Astros have developed into pretty reliable draft-and-develop machines, and they're two of the more analytically inclined organizations in the sport. But there's also more than just one way to skin a cat.

The last Nationals' first-round pick to make a real impact with Washington in the majors was Anthony Rendon, taken sixth in 2011. There were two years since then -- 2013 and 2015 -- when the Nats had no first-round pick because they signed a top-tier free agent in the offseason, and because they were so frequently contending, they never picked higher than 16th until 2021, when they took shortstop Brady House at No. 11.

That said, there is still a chance some of these higher picks come through. The reports on House are very strong. Right-hander Cade Cavalli, the first-round pick from 2020, was excellent at Class A and AA this season before struggling at Class AAA Rochester over six starts to end the year. There's still hope for 2019 first-rounder Jackson Rutledge.

All that said, GM Mike Rizzo closed the regular season saying that he wanted some fresh eyes on all aspects of the operation. That's player development. That's scouting. That's even on the big-league staff. It'll be interesting to see how that plays out in the coming months.

This is an interesting one, particularly because everyone watching on TV seems to have a better idea of what's a strike and what's not than the actual person making the call.

There's a Web site called Ump Scorecards that keeps track of all this, ranking umpires by percentage of accurate ball-strike calls. There are 99 umps in the majors. The ranks of the seven umpires assigned to the World Series: 20th, 43rd, 48th, 60th, 83rd, 86th and 91st.

Given how much data that's available, I can't understand why MLB would make those assignments.

This is all a long-winded way of saying: automated strike zones are coming. They have been tested in the minors. They will take away all the questioning. And -- maybe as important -- they will be able to be adjusted so we can hopefully get back to the proper balance between hitter and pitcher. They can make sure the high four-seamer that's just out of the top of the zone is called a ball, and they can make sure the diving slider that's just out of the bottom of the zone is a ball. They can make the pitcher come back into the zone to get hitters out -- which, hopefully, would allow hitters a better chance to more frequently make contact and put balls in play.

More than anything, that's what the game needs.

I look at this one this way: The Nats had a more difficult division series, falling behind to the Dodgers 2-1 and having to win a Game 5 on the road. By comparison, the Braves steamrolled the Brewers in four games, though I don't think I saw that one going that way -- at all.

But in the next round, there's no comparison: The Braves ousting a 106-win Dodgers team in six games was a more difficult task than the Nats sweeping the overmatched Cardinals. By that point in the postseason, Washington was rolling.

I'll agree with you that Verlander, Cole and a better version of Greinke made that Houston team more difficult than this one -- though I wouldn't sleep on this Astros rotation. Houston's lineup is still all kinds of dangerous. I'll wimp out and not give an answer -- other than to say I love these kinds of debates.

In that sense, we're lucky we're in Houston and Atlanta -- and not Boston!

This has been discussed, for sure, and you'll recall the season used to be 154 games rather than 162. But shave it down even by that small amount and you're looking at four lost home games for each franchise -- four dates at which they can't collect parking or ticket revenue or concessions, etc. That's eight games fewer for their local TV packages, and the broadcasters aren't just going to pay the same total for less inventory.

What you're likely to see -- in fact, very likely to see -- are actually expanded playoffs. No more one-game wild-card eliminations, but three-game series, and possibly more teams involved. They did this after the 60-game pandemic season of 2020 -- and a rightful champion was still crowned.

That said, I think the current playoff format is about perfect. The wild-card games are Game 7s to open October. Best-of-five is good for the division series. Then the grind of these seven-gamers. I wish it would stay the same. I fear it will not.

Interesting question. The pledge is to quote anyone -- Alex Ovechkin, person in a grocery store, mayor of a small town -- accurately. What the person said should be in the quote. Nothing more. Nothing less.

I'll push back slightly that it makes foreigners sound "unintelligent." I would think a reader would have an understanding that speaking a second language is very difficult, particularly if you're doing it publicly. Ovechkin, for instance, has been here long enough that he can get across his ideas and thoughts and beliefs clearly, even if his English would be considered a little "broken."

I also think it's fun and interesting to watch/listen as athletes improve with the language over time. This is true with, say, Juan Soto, who rarely needs the help of a translator to articulately answer questions in English with English responses.

Which reminds me: Happy birthday to the Childish Bambino. He turned 23 yesterday.

Anyway, our job is to quote people accurately, not to clean up their quotes. No disrespect is intended. In fact, the opposite.

Great question. Literally can't think of an angsty one. So many good personalities there -- Anthony Rizzo, Joey Votto, Pujols when he's there, Zim, Josh Bell, Schwarber when he was there, Vlad Jr...wow, that's kind of wild.

It's really an organizational philosophy. The Nationals, under GM Mike Rizzo, believe something Rizzo says frequently: "With starting pitching, anything is possible. Without it, nothing is possible." He reiterated that late this season as he outlined how the Nats will try to retool/rebuild/whatever.

That said, there are organizations -- the Dodgers and Rays jump to mind -- that believe the 27 outs that must be recorded to win a ballgame can be recorded by all manner of pitchers who give the pitching team matchup advantages and flexibility. There is a statistical truth that most pitchers struggle when they face a lineup for the third time -- as they tire and the hitters become more familiar with their stuff. The extreme of this was Tampa Bay's removal of ace Blake Snell in Game 6 of last year's World Series, even though he was dealing and the top three hitters in the Dodgers' lineup were 0 for 6 with six Ks against him.

There's not much at stake here other than the future of the game. The sport is tilted too much in the pitcher's favor right now, and the fact that teams carry so many pitchers, and the pitchers all seem to throw 98 mph, is a factor in that.

I think there's a good chance it gets settled in spring training. I also think there's a decent chance spring training gets shortened until a deal can get done, since by then the owners would start losing money and the players know that.

I think there will probably be a lockout. I am willing to say I think it will be settled by Opening Day. But I've been wrong before about many things.

This is hard, and I often think of it this way: A football coach is responsible not only for setting the culture of a franchise, but for implementing an offensive or defensive system. The way he uses his player, the style of offense his team runs, essentially defines the team. Sean McVay is good with the Rams because he has good players. But he's also good with the Rams because he's a master at designing plays and exploiting mismatches.

There's not really a way to do that in baseball. There are pivotal points in a given game -- what pitcher to use against which hitters in the eighth inning, when to pull a starter, who to save as a pinch-hitter. Those all matter. But the style of a team's play is less tied to a manager's "system," because there essentially is no system.

Which makes picking the best managers a very difficult task. I'll always believe that baseball is so day-to-day, so all-consuming -- even moreso than football for the players -- that handling people and personalities becomes a primary, if not THE primary, part of the job.

So, Hall of Fame managers? Well, lots of wins over a long period of time. Championships, playoff appearances, etc. But it would be great if there were a place for a guy who took last-place talent and somehow steered it to 84-78 pretty regularly. There's not a place in Cooperstown for those folks -- even if that's kind of a more remarkable achievement than having a super-talented team and keeping your hands off it.

It's was an issue 20 years ago. It was an issue 10 years ago. It's an issue now. A first pitch at 8:08 p.m. Eastern -- or thereabouts -- followed by what amounts to a relatively quick game of 3 hours, 30 minutes means the last out is recorded at 11:38 p.m. That's late.

Now, I realize not everyone lives on the East Coast, and that if MLB could get more people to watch by moving the games earlier, it would. But it definitely affects my relationship with the postseason. When I had Chelsea's job -- essentially being on the road for all of October -- I was locked in, focused not just on the series I was covering but on all of them. That involves a shift in your own personal clock, working until after 1 a.m. -- but then sleeping in, or sleeping on a plane -- because there's no kids to get to school or dogs to walk, etc.

That's hard to do for the everyman sitting at home. Here"s one thought: Can we speed up the time in between innings -- allowing maybe one minute -- and show some adds during the game? That's a switch I'd make.

Could be true, but the only manager with more wins than Dusty not in the Hall is Bruce Bochy, who hasn't been eligible yet.

This is the problem with all these questions, particularly the ones the players feel are central: It's not an easy fix. One proposal I heard was to have things based on age. For example (And only for example, I don't know if this or anything like it has been proposed beyond hypotheticals), you say any player who has six years of service time by age 29 becomes a free agent or as soon as a player hits five years of service time after 29, he becomes a free agent. If you know a player is gone at 29 no matter what, you lose some incentive to hold them back.

Obviously that wouldn't fix everything. You still have to figure out how to incentivize teams to be willing to pay for experienced free agents, etc. It's all intertwined. But you could make age a backstop. That's just one thought.

"Afford"? Probably. Want to pay for? Probably not. I don't see them going after any of the big names this winter. They don't know what they have in the young guys. I don't think you necessarily should expect them to stop spending, but I don't expect them to spend much yet. I think they are, rightly, looking at themselves and realizing they can't spend away some of the shortcomings in the organization as currently constructed. So they're trying to go back and patch up the foundation. Until that's done, you're sort of spending just to spend.

I can honestly say that I was saying I thought the Astros were the team to beat since the beginning of the playoffs. I just think they can hit better than anyone and in a year where pitching is so tired and overworked, it feels like that might win out. I did NOT have Atlanta getting this far. Not even close. Wasn't even certain they'd win the NL East. I'm not sure whether it's an indictment on my ability to diagnose winners or the state of the game, but I've found a lot of baseball pretty unpredictable this year, and I think that's actually a real positive.

Rivera's road has been a bit rockier recently, and his tone has changed a little bit. He is starting to say that the results aren't what he expects, and they have to get better. He's less defensive. That's progress.

I can't see them moving on from Rivera after two seasons -- the first in a pandemic. He has a five-year contract. That's a lot of money to pay someone not to coach.

Plus, I do think there's room both to acknowledge the mistakes but believe there can be progress. Do his players get better as individuals, and do his units get better as a team? It's why Sunday's game at Denver is worth watching -- which I'll be doing from Atlanta before Game 5 of the World Series!

Jonathan Allen has always seemed like a voice of reason and realism, and I agree with you: That was an honest, if sad, way to look at the situation.

But he's not wrong. Think about how close this team is to being 0-7 -- a terrible offsides penalty on the game-winning field goal against the Giants, and then an unlikely comeback against Atlanta. (Now, they also could have beaten the Chargers and the Saints. Still.)

I don't know, man. It just feels like the same movie. Not week to week. But year to year -- and at this point, decade to decade.

To me, it's less about defensive backs being unable to find receivers. It's about two overarching issues: the owner, and the eternal search for a quarterback. The owner sets the tone for the entire operation, and that tone -- it's been proven -- was disgusting for years. And I'll paraphrase Mike Rizzo and apply it to the NFL: With a franchise quarterback, anything is possible. Without one, nothing is.

So even if they start playing better this year, they're still treading water until and unless they can find the solution behind center.