Marlins Have Returned to the Scene of the Crime

What makes a great World Series? What makes a lousy World Series?

The answer to the first question usually involves close games, a seventh game, memorable individual performances and some late-inning dramatics.

The answer to the second usually involves the Florida Marlins.

This is the Marlins’ second World Series appearance in seven years. As with the first, a good book close at hand is a requisite for any TV viewer. I’ve been flipping through Joseph Wallace’s “World Series: An Opinionated Chronicle” during this one, and let me tell you, a few moments spent studying black ink on bleached wood pulp is a useful way to clear the head after half an inning of Fox’s whirling, careening, honey-where’s-the-Dramamine VertigoCam.

Wallace ranks what he considers the 10 best and 10 worst World Series played. Runner-up on his worst list: the 1997 series between the Marlins and the Cleveland Indians, which, in his words, brought together “everything that’s wrong with modern-day baseball in one messy package.”

Those Marlins had it all -- except history (they were born in 1993), first-place credentials (they were the National League wild card) and a long-term commitment to winning (they were thrown together by owner Wayne Huizenga to manufacture fan interest for a new stadium, and were sold off just as quickly).

No. 1 on Wallace’s worst list was the 1919 World Series, which entailed several members of the Chicago White Sox throwing the series to the Cincinnati Reds.

So, if you take away all the World Series that were rigged, the worst World Series played, among all the World Series played between two teams trying not to lose, was, in Wallace’s estimation, Florida-Cleveland ’97.

It’s a hard point to argue ... and something for the 2003 Marlins and Yankees to shoot for.

How bad was the ’97 Marlins-Indians World Series?

It was so bad, Florida won the series, in seven games, with a staff earned-run average of 5.48.

It was so bad, acting Commissioner Bud Selig complained about the interminable Game 3, which featured 17 walks and 25 runs, grousing, “The Unfinished Symphony had a better chance of finishing before that game.”

It was so bad, NBC’s Don Ohlmeyer said he wished the network could dump the series to A&E.;

Six years later, the Marlins are back in the World Series and Fox is televising it, in almost grudging fashion. The undercurrent to Fox’s coverage of Games 1 and 2 in New York was: We’re bored with this matchup and we think you are too, so let’s place a call to Michael Strahan during the middle of the second inning to plug our mobile phone sponsor and ask him the “Virtual Manager” question of the moment -- which city has the “hotter night life,” New York or Miami?

Is this any way to run a World Series?

Would Joe Buck have been ordered to place that call during Game 2 of a Cubs-Red Sox World Series?

Wouldn’t the Red Sox still be playing if Grady Little hadn’t decided to virtually manage the eighth inning against the Yankees last Thursday?

Fox, and most of America, wanted a Cubs-Red Sox World Series. Failing that, Cubs-Yankees or Red Sox-Marlins would have sufficed. But Yankees-Marlins? The team that wins too many World Series against the team that nearly killed the World Series? It’s a tough marquee to sell, but maybe Fox ought to let this one play out before deciding to conference-call the first dozen names on Robin Williams’ speed-dial.

In 1991, Minnesota versus Atlanta seemed as motley a matchup to ever stumble into October. The Twins and Braves were last-place teams in 1990. Pittsburgh won more regular-season games than Atlanta. Toronto had a more interesting roster than Minnesota.

Still, they let the Twins and Braves play the games.

They produced a consensus classic, climaxing with Jack Morris’ 10-inning, 1-0 victory in Game 7. Wallace calls it the greatest World Series played. So does ESPN.com, checking in with its own best-to-worst World Series rankings.

(ESPN’s worst World Series? The 1994 series, which was canceled because of a players strike. ESPN’s second-worst World Series? The 1904 series, which was canceled because New York Giant Manager John McGraw refused to play the Boston Red Sox. So, in ESPN’s view, the two worst World Series ever played were never played, suggesting that no October baseball is worse than bad October baseball. The point is debatable.)

The best World Series after Minnesota-Atlanta, according to both Wallace and ESPN, was Cincinnati-Boston in 1975. Great show, they take it to a seventh game and the Red Sox lose in the end. Baseball likes its traditions.

Arizona over the Yankees in 2001 was not so traditional, but it ranked high on both lists -- Wallace had it No. 4, ESPN No. 3. Anyone knocking off the Yankees is a popular theme. Even if the underdog is an expansion team born in the 1990s. The Marlins have their sliver of hope.

Despite Fox’s distract-the-viewer shenanigans and short-attention-span camera work, ratings for Games 1 and 2 of this Series were up over 9% over the 2002 matchup between the Angels and the San Francisco Giants.

On paper, the Angels and the Giants produced a great World Series -- it went seven games, Barry Bonds hit two titanic home runs, the Angels staged a memorable Game 6 comeback and the underdogs wound up winning it all. ESPN ranked it No. 10 on its list.

But the Angels and the Giants also produced the worst TV rating ever for the World Series, 11.9.

Twelve months later, the fallout continues to be felt.

The lesson, as learned by Fox, is this: Exciting baseball won’t necessarily sell itself. So let’s round up the usual celebrities and try to sell some cell phones.