A few World Series thoughts:

• I went into this series planning to root for the Rays, but I found myself more drawn to the Phillies right from game 1. I suppose it's because Sox fans have a lot in common with Phillies fans: intense loyalty, decades of suffering, both from big northeastern cities. To be honest, I think Phillies fans deserve the win more than the Tampa area bandwagon jumpers.
• The Rays aren't dead yet by any means, but if either team wins this has been a good decade for teams that haven't had a lot of recent success. Since the 2000 Subway Series, you have had two teams win the World Series that had never won before (Diamondbacks, Angels); two teams that hadn't won since World War I was being fought (Red Sox, White Sox) and a team that hadn't won in nearly a quarter century (Cardinals). Only the 2003 champion Marlins had won a World Series in it's recent past. The Rays (never won more than 70 games before this year) or Phillies (1 world championship since 1883 before this year) would both be worthy additions to this group.
• What is wrong with MLB that they let one of the most exciting World Series games in recent years (game 3, a walkoff win for the Phillies), start after 10 PM on the east coast? I know they had rain to deal with, but who did they think was going to watch that game, other than Phillies fans, Rays fans and insomniacs?
• Would you pay good money to see a Cole Hamels-Jon Lester pitching matchup? I would.
• I saw an article putting some responsibility for the recent lopsided World Series on the long layoffs one team faced before the series started, specifically citing the Tigers in 2006 (off for a week) and the Rockies last year (8 day layoff). The Phillies took a week off before the Rays were able to dispatch the Red Sox. How's that theory working now?