Topps baseball cards are hitting the market this week, and about one in every 70 packs will include a fake picture of Rudy Giuliani, the former New York City mayor, celebrating with the Red Sox on the field after their World Series win -- a liberty Topps took in creating various mock baseball cards this year, though Giuliani's will be the only one in wide release.

(For the full list of mock cards, see below).

Giuliani, a former presidential candidate, alienated some New York fans back in October by declaring he was rooting for Boston in the World Series -- "I'm an American league fan," he said -- and Topps ran with the idea, according to the Associated Press.

"We took that and thought it would make for a funny card, since the Red Sox won," said Clay Luraschi, baseball brand manager for The Topps Co. "We thought, let's put him in the championship dog pile."

Topps did something similar a year ago, inserting President Bush into the stands and Mickey Mantle into the dugout in the background of Derek Jeter's card.

Beyond the Giuliani card, the following baseball cards were created specially for Topps 2008, and sources tell me these rare and valuable pieces will be popping up in random packs as well.

* Rick Ankiel signing for a FedEx package.

* Kansas City Owner David Glass pushing a shopping cart out of Wal-Mart, filled with free agents who aren't good-value has-beens.

* Johnny Damon, his left arm replaced by the Bionic Woman's.

* Barry Bonds kissing the asterisk ball.

* Matt Holliday standing on first base, refusing to move.

* Moises Alou wiping his hands with a moist toilette.

* Mike Winters laughing at Milton Bradley as he writhes on the ground.

* C.C. Sabathia, his hat held straight by a neck halo.

* Brett Myers getting cold-cocked by his wife.

* Suzyn Waldman having sex with the New York Yankees.

* Eric Wedge burning a white towel.

* Clint Hurdle burning a white towel.

* Willie Randolph smoking a cigar.

* Manny Ramirez reaching into the Monster Seats to make a bare-handed grab.

* Joe Torre awake in the dugout.

* Sen. John Edwards chasing an ambulance.

* Jonathan Papelbon rooting through his dog's shit.

* Roger Clemens on all fours in a pasture.

* Derek Jeter in a rundown between IRS agents.

* Julio Lugo in street clothes.

* Randy Johnson at the barber.

* Cole Hamels's wife.

* Jim Rice holding his Hall of Fame plaque.

* Steve Bartman in a White Sox hat.

* Ken Griffey Jr. in a china shop.

* Honus Wagner smoking a cigarette.

* Jeff Kent popping a wheelie.

* A-Rod holding the World Series trophy.

    Hidden behind the Patriots' record-breaking season of scoring and near perfection was Bill Belichick's year-long lack of faith in place kicker Stephen Gostkowski. Considering the Patriots won all 3 of their Super Bowls this decade by a field goal (off the leg of current Colt Adam Vinatieri), it's fittingly ironic that they'd lose a title game because they didn't trust their kicker to convert from any respectable distance.
    Critics might say that Belichick was arrogant or insane to go for it on fourth and 13 from the Giants 31-yard line midway through the third quarter, rather than let Gostkowski attempt a 48-yard field goal. But if the old maxim remains true, that you don't change your playbook once you get to the Super Bowl, then it made sense that Belichick didn't let Gostkowski take a shot: He's had little faith in him all season; and whatever remained went out the window in the playoff game against Jacksonville, when Gostkowski missed a 35-yard kick with 57 seconds left in the first half, which would have put the Patriots up 17-14. After that, he never even attempted another field goal in the post-season.
    Because the Patriots set an NFL record for touchdowns this season, Gostkowksi's field goal attempts were expectedly low. His 21 makes were good for only 25th in the league. Given New England's high-flying offense, that's not a red flag. What is, however, is this stat: Of the 31 NFL kickers who made at least 10 field goals in 2007, Gostkowski had the shortest long of the season, 45 yards. Belichick might have been crazy not to punt on fourth and 13, but not attempting a field goal was in keeping with what he knew about Gostkowski. Namely, that he had no history of success -- at least this season -- from anywhere north of 45 yards.
    During the preseason, the Pats' kicker missed four kicks: from 33, 46, 53 and 56 yards. During the regular season, he missed three: from 41, 32 and 48. He only attempted 5 field goals of between 40-49 yards all season, making 3. In his two seasons in New England, he's only attempted 10 regular-season field goals of more than 40 yards, making 6 (including his career long of 52 yards last year).
    The few number of attempts is a combination of two factors in particular: A high-scoring offense whom you trust to convert on fourth downs (Pats were 15 of 21 during the regular season) and a weak-legged kicker whom you distrust to make even moderately long field goals.
    How big of a weakness was Gostkowski for the Patriots? During blowouts, none. But during a tight game like the Super Bowl, huge. Consider this: 24 of the 31 kickers who made at least 10 field goals this season also kicked at least one field goal of 49 yards or more. So 75 percent of regular NFL place kickers had tried AND converted that length of field goal. The Patriots, on the other hand, never even attempted a kick that long during the regular season.
    So, what happens when you need to kick a 48- or 49- yard field goal in the Super Bowl? If you're Bill Belichick, you feel such a lack of confidence in your kicker that you go for it on fourth and 13. Can you really blame him?
    The Patriots had just gone 16 plays in 8 and a half minutes to start the second half, even extending their drive with a brilliant challenge that nabbed the Giants with 12 men on the field. A field goal would have put them up 10-3. But because Belichick felt certain that Gostkowski would miss -- and perhaps frustrated with the possibility of a long and fruitless drive -- he chose to go for it on fourth and 13.  The wise move would have been punting. The dumb move -- at least to Belichick -- would have been trying to kick a field goal.  The ultimate move was turning the ball over on downs.
    What was the immediate effect of that decision? Nothing really. The Giants punted on their next possession, then a field-position game ensued until New York took the lead 10-7.
    Still, after New England refused to even attempt that long field goal, you knew they wouldn't be winning another title on a last-minute kick.
    Down the road, if they don't find a kicker they can trust, they'll remain vulnerable...at least to losing Super Bowls by 3 points.

In the 1983 Super Bowl, when the Redskins played the Raiders, Washington had the highest-scoring team in league history. They'd gone 14-2 in the regular season, losing those two games by one point each. Otherwise, they' d more or less creamed everybody. Here are their game-by-game results: [www.pro-football-reference.com]

The Redskins that year had the league's MVP, quarterback Joe Theismann, and a running back (John Riggins) who'd set the NFL record for rushing touchdowns with 24. Not only that, but they'd played the Raiders in the regular season...and beat them 37-35 -- all of which strikes a familiar chord when considering Tom Brady, Randy Moss and the Week 17 game versus the Giants.

So what happened to those near-perfect Redskins in the 1983 Super Bowl? The underdog Raiders waxed them 38-9, because Washington imploded in almost every facet of the game. Not only did Raiders running back Marcus Allen run wild on the league's #1 ranked rushing defense, but the Skins surrendered touchdowns on a blocked punt and a pick-six...by Raiders linebacker Jack Squirek. Jack Who? Exactly. (Squirek, btw, landed on the cover of Sports Illustrated the next week. He's not been seen since.)

So, how bad were things for the Skins in that game? Well, after their lone touchdown, kicker Mark Moseley's extra point was blocked. In short, the Redskins -- who were just 4 points away from being 18-0 heading into the Super Bowl -- didn't show up to play. Think that could never happen to a Bill Belichick-coached team? Well, that loss to the Raiders was Joe Gibbs' s lone Super Bowl defeat. Otherwise, he was 3-0 in the big game -- which is where Bill Belichick stands right now.

Hmmm.

Anyway, I'm giving the Pats the benefit of the doubt in this one, because Stephen Gostkowski is pretty good at XPs. So, 38-10, Giants

After the game-fixing scandal involving former NBA referee Tim Donaghy, Major League Baseball is right to ask discomfiting questions about its umpires -- including whether they gamble, live beyond their means, smoke pot or belong to organizations like the KKK. This isn't character assassination, and it's not screaming "fire!" in the absence of smoke. It's common sense taken to its obvious end.

Umpires are in positions of authority, with the capability of single-handedly affecting the lives of countless people, both in terms of gambling (winning or losing money) and general happiness, i.e., purposely blowing a call that goes against your team. Their objectivity cannot be questionable. While no one doubts that arbiters are occasionally influenced by grudges, personal dislikes and grammar-school pettiness, fans cannot be questioning (even to themselves) whether an umpire has been bought off or otherwise compromised.

Fearful of their own Donaghy-like development, MLB has reportedly released the hounds, sending investigators to question the neighbors, friends, acquaintances, mistresses and cabana boys of its umpires.

"The questions that we found out are being asked are about beating wives, marijuana use and extravagant parties," World Umpires Association president John Hirschbeck said to the Associated Press in a telephone interview Wednesday. "And then finally with this whole thing about the Ku Klux Klan.

"You get someone from security, shows his credentials and starts asking these kind of questions, and right away what's the neighbor going to think other than the umpire is in trouble, he's done something wrong and he's going to lose his job."

If I were an umpire and people were investigating my background, I'd probably shit twice and die. But that's why I'm not an umpire (or even currently employed). If umpires don't want investigators asking uncomfortable questions about their finances, friendships, families and pot-smoking habits, they should find another line of work, because the public needs to know that umpires have not been unduly influenced.

Can these investigations go too far? Can they be abused? Of course. But that's the risk we take with investing power in the hands of investigators -- and it's the same kind of power we invest in umpires. Hey, no one likes Internal Affairs, but they're a necessary evil, because they combat the threat of a greater evil: the undermining of the entire system.

Investigating umpires is not un-American. It's not a witch-hunt, it's not torture, and it doesn't run counter to the dictates of the Geneva Convention. It's common sense taken to a certain end: acknowledging the fallibility of human beings and trying to keep the most fallible -- the umpires who've been compromised by failures in judgment, ethics or associations -- as far away from the diamond as possible.

Who, other than the umpires themselves (and perhaps the ACLU) has a problem with this? If umps don't like it, well, we can always get Enrico Palazzo.

It's interesting when you look back at all the NFL dynasties -- Packers of the 60s, Dolphins of the early 70s, Steelers of the 70s, Niners of the 80s, Cowboys of the early 90s, Broncos of the late 90s -- NONE of them lost their last Super Bowl appearance. And really, that seems to separate the dynasties from the merely great teams.

The Cowboys in the 70s lost every other Super Bowl they appeared in, so they're not a dynasty. The Redskins of the 80s and the early 90s weren't a dynasty either -- their championships were spread out over 10 seasons, and included three different starting quarterbacks. In the last 12 years, the Packers and the Rams lost their follow-up Super Bowls, though the Rams' appearances were separated by a year. If they'd been able to win back-to-back titles or even two in three years, Green Bay and St. Louis would have had legitimate claims to the title of "dynasty."

Basically, these Patriots have the chance to be the first dynasty -- and they already are a dynasty -- to lose a Super Bowl. They probably won't, because of experience, but there's a first time for everything.

Mind you, the Pats can always return to the Super Bowl in the next few years, and start a new chapter. But no dynastic NFL team has ever lost a Super Bowl and then won another title. The Dolphins in the 70s lost their first appearance, but then won two in a row. What's this say about dynasties? It says they're always capped with a W -- to date, anyway.