I'm obviously heartbroken for my Texas Rangers. I don't remember any of the comments made after the game -- I just remember Ron Washington's sunken, tired face that mirrored the exhaustion of Ranger players and fans who came to the very crest of achievement and fell away. Twice.

I've spent some time trying to make sense of the whole thing, asking just as much 'what happened' as 'what do we do now?' When the world caves in, it's easy to question the fundamentals of the team - to ask whether there is some central flaw that makes a championship forever just out of reach. To this thought, which I perceive is prevalent among Rangers fans, I urge caution, perspective, and some much-needed time to rest, reflect, and refocus.

Exhibit A: Atlanta Braves
The Atlanta Braves of 1991 & 1992 were the last team to lose back-to-back World Series. No less coincidental, the 1991 series featured a David Freese moment of its own. In Game 6, Kirby Puckett hit a walk-off home run to force Game 7. Like Freese, his home run also came in the bottom of the 11th inning. The Twins went on to win Game 7 on the arm of Jack Morris, who pitched 10 scoreless innings to seal the victory. Heartbreaking for the Braves, right? And that was just their first World Series defeat.

I bring up the Atlanta Braves because they are a great example of resiliency in the face of defeat. Bobby Cox, their soon-to-be Hall of Fame manager, led them to a total of 5 World Series in the 1990s. They won the 1995 series, lost in 1996 to the Yankees, and lost again in 1999, again to the Yankees. So how are the Braves viewed, 15 years removed from their run? At first glance, we might call them baseball's version of the Buffalo Bills, who lost 4 straight Super Bowls right around the time the Braves lost their first two. Yet, we don't see them that way. The Braves are celebrated as a dynasty, partly validated by the series they won, but more defined by their ability to improve themselves while keeping their core together, and somehow managing to complete at the highest levels for 14 consecutive years.


Exhibit B: Free Agents, or lack thereof
I will not labor this point, except to say that the Rangers have 2 free agents this offseason: C.J. Wilson and Mike Gonzalez. Everyone else is on board for at least one more year. Our core is in tact, which frees up Jon Daniels and Nolan Ryan to focus entirely on player development and seeking out a few extra pieces that could improve on an already-great team.

Exhibit C: Player Development
The big question mark in this area is how certain players will respond to the adversity they have just faced. Chiefly among these is young Neftali Feliz. He is in the conversation, already, as the best closer in baseball. He didn't have his best performance Thursday night, but in a role that unfairly requires perfection every night, he has proven his worth over the aggregate. Hopefully he understands this, and looks forward to the next big opportunity.

The Rangers have a mix of established veterans who are peaking, and young players who are good and still improving. My favorite example is Derek Holland, our young starter who pitched a lights-out Game 4, allowing 2 hits over 8 1/3 innings. He hasn't always been consistent, but he was dominant in his biggest performance of the season. That should be a great comfort to Rangers fans everywhere. Elvis Andrus is still improving. Nelson Cruz grew into a monster. Ditto for Mike Napoli. Matt Harrison had his best season so far. There's a lot of room to grow with the guys we already have.

In Conclusion
The beauty of baseball is that it is an inherently patient game. The reason the Braves are not likened to the Bills is not because they won a World Series (though that helps). More, baseball just plays out in a way that doesn't lend itself to marginalization. Football is regimented, sharp, and ruthless. It is a game of black and white. It is pitiless. Baseball is a game of second chances. It may hurt now, but we're in league with some great, celebrated stories, and come April 1st, all will be forgotten, and we'll start a new 7-month journey. Hopefully, with a result one pitch better than this beautiful year we've had.

Hello patient, faithful readers,

It's been awhile I know, but I think the end of the year should be fairly active. I have a writing concept in mind and I'd love your help. In light of Steve Jobs's death, I started thinking about him in relation to other great American entrepreneurs, and how they would look if I could somehow put them on a level field of comparison. This isn't an effort to name anyone the 'best' -- I think most such lists are born out of arrogance and lethargy. A simple comparison is all I'm after. There are circa 10 weeks left in the year, so I'm thinking 10 entrepreneurs, 1 each week, will do. Then, somewhere near the turn of the year, I'll wrap it up with a synthesis of the series, and hopefully drawing some interesting comparisons.

This is the part where you come in: Obviously I'll make Steve Jobs one of the 10, but who should I use for the other 9? Names like Edison, Rockefeller, Carnegie, Stanford, Buffett, Gates, etc... these all come to mind, but I'm just as interested in 'movers and shakers' who are apparent to many as I am those who are apparent to few. If something comes to mind, or if you want to commit a little time to thinking about it, I'd love to hear your suggestions. Email me at: nathanski@gmail.com

Be sure and let me know soon, as I really need to get going soon to have any chance of finishing by year-end. I'll send out a post this weekend with the final selections.

Thanks! Looking forward to it!