FIRE JOE MORGAN

That's a big fat [sic] on "doctor's" by the way, and I'm going to go ahead and give William Chuckleford another [sic] on the semicolon just on principle*. Also: there's no such thing as curses. End this line of thought now.

Think about the season so far:
Holy shit!


I'm scared, you guys! I'm scared of the curse!

Labels: [yikes], bill chuck, curse boner, dugout central, red sox

Dear Ken Tremendous,

I was on the internet today and happened to read your Open Letter to Theo Epstein. I'd like to talk about that letter, and I apologize to you and anyone else reading that this is going to be boring and unfunny. I blame you.

As far as points 1-4, 7, 8 and 10: as I said from the beginning, I'm leaving it up to Theo as to whether or not the Sox would be better off spending their resources on Bonds. They probably aren't. Bill James has already made a great case for not signing Bonds on a pure baseball-performance level; I don't need Ken Tremendous running the numbers for me when it's already been done by the pros. (Why does anybody read this website anyway?)

I didn't think this was going to be about numbers or even baseball analysis. I also didn't think you were going to call me an asshole.

5. Barry Bonds hated Boston and thought it was racist, before he had ever been there. That seems like a dude you definitely want on your team, which plays in Boston.

I'm fine with it. I'm fine with a guy saying that he didn't want to play in Boston because he thought it was racist, four years ago. I'd be even more fine if that same guy decided to retract his statement, and play in that very same city if it proved to be his only viable option (which again, it won't; this is all hypothetical and pointless).

As I said before in the comments to the original post, I think it might help repair the racist image of the Boston sports world if the Sox signed one of the most high-profile African-American athletes in the country, especially at a time when no one else wanted him. I don't think it would make a big difference, but I certainly don't see the problem. I mean, if you don't like Bonds for calling Boston racist, wouldn't you want to see him admit that he was wrong, put on the Sox uniform, and (hopefully) find out that he was, in fact, at least kind of wrong?

That might be an unlikely scenario, but, within the universe of scenarios wherein Bonds plays for the Red Sox (I'm so bored right now), I submit that it's more unlikely that he would end up saying something like "Man, this place is even more racist than I thought." To be sure, Boston has its problems, but I like to think that (a) the situation is not nearly as bad as Bonds thought it was and (b) he'd be on his best behavior anyway and therefore pretty careful about what he said about his new team's town.

6...Now, I know a lot of guys in professional sports can proudly claim one or more of (a)-(f). But only one has all of them. And you want to put that guy -- that 43 year-old mini-scrotumed douchebag -- on your team?

There are hundreds of guys who are guilty of (a) and (b) (using PEDs and lying about it). Are you certain that none of them played on the 2004 or 2007 Red Sox? (Again, Gagne.)

I'm going to assume that every single baseball player cheats on his wife until proven otherwise, and I don't really care much if a guy cheats on his taxes or buys a house for his mistress (c). I'm not in favor of these things, and I also don't think it speaks very well for him. But I also don't root for my sports teams based on character. I root for the Boston Red Sox, and so do you. Sure, I'd prefer that they sign nothing but dudes who spend every non-baseball-playing-moment volunteering at the Jimmy Fund, but I tend not to worry about this kind of thing.

As far as calling racism everywhere he went (d), yeah, I'm not fond of that neither. But I'd also be willing to bet that he's been the victim of racism more often than you or I. In fact, I give him a pretty long leash on this one...do you think he would have booed so vehemently if he had been white? Hard to say.

As far as the kids thing (e), well, if you're going to lie about using steroids (which again, dozens of players have), you might as well use your kids, right? I give him points for creativity. And skipping a Home Run Derby (f)...you really care about that?

I can't defend everything Bonds has done. My main point is that many of his transgressions have been unnecessarily vilified, or seem worse relative to other players guilty of the same shit, simply because of how good he was, the stage he played on, and, perhaps, his race. None of those things are his fault.

Some people are jerks. Some of these jerks play baseball. Some of these people will end up playing for the team you root for. Would you root for a guy who was guilty of 1 of these a-f things (and surely you've rooted for at least one player who's taken steroids for years)? How about 3? Where do you draw the line?

I say once you're a fan of a team, you've signed up for the absurdity of the whole thing. You can't control who your team signs. You want to root for people you like, sure. But there's so much about these players we don't know, anyway. How sure can you be that Bonds is more of a douchebag than Mike Timlin? How can you even measure that? Why root for one but not the other, if they were wearing the same uniform? Are we still friends?

9. Let me ask you something -- and you too, dak. Is there any part of you...any part at all...that thinks that this would go well:

"Barry?"
"Yeah?"
"Hi. Allow me to introduce myself. I'm Dan Shaughnessey."

You want that? You want what follows that in your clubhouse?

Fuck, I don't care. Part of me thinks these two guys deserve each other. My biggest concern would be that Shaughnessy would garner more attention if he gets to cover the Bonds beat.

Do you want to be the guy who makes a case that this clubhouse atmosphere would adversely affect the performance of the other players? Go ahead, dude. Be my guest. I thought I knew you.

11...With (dak')s logic, there is no crime, no matter how heinous, that a player on your favorite team could commit that would sour a positive result on the playing field.

Of course there are crimes that are so heinous. I would not root for a team of convicted murderers, or players who have been proven to fix or throw games. I don't know how I would feel if this guy turned out to be Curtis Leskanic, but it would certainly wouldn't make me feel great about the Sox '04 Most Awesome Thing Ever.

As you know, I don't think Pete Rose belongs in the hall of fame. I think Barry Bonds does. I also don't really care that much, because almost everything about the Hall of Fame (again, the Hall, not the Museum) is poopyshoes.

Every day Pete Rose passed a sign on the wall explaining to him that anyone who engaged in the exact kind of behavior he was engaging in would be banned from baseball for life. Until 2003, MLB didn't even have a penalty in place for steroid users until 2003. (First time violators faced the near unbearable penalty of...counseling.)

But I just can't fault a guy for taking steroids when there wasn't a penalty for it. I'll take it to the extreme: I still think there's a case to be made that it's worth taking steroids today, in certain dire injury circumstances, and risking the first time 50-game suspension. People have broken the rules in every sport since the day they were invented. In the case of steroids, Bill James' travelling analogy seems worth bringing up (remember when he was on your side of the argument?).

Fortunately, sins of the highest magnitude (incest; game fixing; finding SJP more attractive than Trachtenberg) are weeded out by a combination of the law and MLB policy. Of course, those are the easy calls. The real question for both/all of us: where do you draw the line?

I don't have an answer.

Aaaaaand, I win!

Labels: barry bonds, bill james, michelle trachtenberg, red sox, steroids, theo epstein

This is the second in a series of FJM's Peabody- and MacArthur Genius Grant Award-winning essays on the topic: "Should the Boston Red Sox sign Barry L. Bonds to replace the injured David Ortiz's production in the line-up?" In Vol. 1 of this series, dak argued: "Yes." In order to make things interesting, and because it is the correct answer, I have decided to take the position: "no."

COUNTERPOINT: dak IS A WEIRD AMORAL CONSEQUENTIALIST ASSHOLE*

Dear Mr. Epstein,

First, allow me to apologize for the inappropriate and juvenile way that my friend dak tried to forge a bond with you in his essay. His odd attempts to raise tenuous "connections" with you, based on nothing more than childhood geography and Jewishness was, in a word, embarrassing. I know that you do not stand for that sort of thing, because you and I totally met at the 2003 Hot Stove, Cool Music and talked for several minutes and we're basically best friends, so, again, I apologize, and also let's hang out.

To the matter at hand, though: you shouldn't sign Barry Bonds, even in a theoretical world in which you might be contemplating signing Barry Bonds, which is not this world, because you are not a crazy insane mad man.

Normally on this site, and in my life as a rule, I prefer to use numbers and statistics to back up my points, so let's start there and gradually work our way toward my final point.

dak seems to think signing Barry Bonds is a good idea, for an offensively-needy club like yours. This, as Baruch Spinoza famously said, is fucking insane. Here are like 11 reasons why: (I don't even know if I have 11, but I am so confident I can come up with 11 I'm just going for it):

1. dak suggests that Barry Bonds, who is 43 (that's 78 in "I never took steroids" years), could just waltz onto an MLB 40-man roster, walk 100 times and OBP .480 and hit like 28 HR (pro-rated, I guess). I doubt this. PECOTA's 50% projections had Barry at .233/.387/.462, EqA of .293. That ain't bad, but it's not a .480 OBP and 28 HR.

Now, obviously, this is a dude who has been blowing away 50% PECOTA projections ever since he started using zinc and flaxseed oil, but the fact remains: there isn't a good reason to think that the guy will hold up that well, especially since it turns out that the zinc and flaxseed oil he was using was actually (spoiler alert! stop reading now if you are a simpleton who believes that Barry Bonds never used steroids) Winstrol/Stanozolol, Deca-Durabolin, HGH, The Cream, and The Clear, among other things. Without that kind of zinc and flaxseed oil, this could be one broken-down 43 year-old pituitary case.

2. Bond's VORP was set at 12.1. I think you can probably make up 12.1 runs (pro-rated) by DHing Manny and playing both Crisp and Ellsbury in the OF every day -- those two have to be worth 12 runs of defense over Manny and either of them. Manny is -73 FRAA over the last five years (14+ runs of badness/year). So, already, without doing anything, you are probably better off without Bonds.

3. Barry Bonds hasn't played baseball yet this year.

4. Barry Bonds has never played in the American League.

5. Barry Bonds hated Boston and thought it was racist, before he had ever been there. That seems like a dude you definitely want on your team, which plays in Boston.

6. Let's see...what else...oh -- he is the world's biggest douchebag. Now. I know we're supposed to be objective here, and we're supposed to get all stat-y and rational and everything, but this dude is actually the #1 Douchebag in America, according to a recent study by professors at the College of Excellence. Consider that he (a) has been cheating at baseball for like 10 years and (b) lied about it the whole time and (c) cheated on his wife and used non-IRS-reported cash to buy his mistress a house in Arizona and (d) claimed racism everywhere he went for whatever reason if it suited his purposes and (e) once dragged his fucking kids into a press conference and used them as literal human shields to try to protect himself from questions about whether he was using steroids (which, again, he totally was) and to try to make the reporters who were asking the questions feel guilty for asking them and (f) didn't even show up to the fucking HR-hitting contest held at his own fucking ballpark, thus essentially producing his weiner from his XXXXXXXXL pants and urinating on the one group of fans anywhere, in any city, that still liked him.

Now, I know a lot of guys in professional sports can proudly claim one or more of (a)-(f). But only one has all of them. And you want to put that guy -- that 43 year-old mini-scrotumed douchebag -- on your team?

7. You don't really need him that bad. Your team has scored 309 runs, 2nd in the AL. That'll take a hit with Ortiz out, but again, DHing Manny and having Crisp in CF every day will help on the other end.

8. The core of this current team has won two WS in four years. There is no urgency here. This is not 2004, when it'd been 86 years and Pedro was old and leaving and Lowe was leaving and Damon and Tek and all those dudes were either leaving or about to start sucking. There is no urgency. None. Boston always wants to win, but after '04 and '07 we don't have to. You don't have to do every single thing in the world to try to win. (This simple fact should prevent you from signing the World's Biggest Douchebag, and should be thought of as a corollary to #'s 2 and 7, which pretty easily show that there is no guarantee the guy would even help that much, overall.)

9. Let me ask you something -- and you too, dak. Is there any part of you...any part at all...that thinks that this would go well:

"Barry?"
"Yeah?"
"Hi. Allow me to introduce myself. I'm Dan Shaughnessey."

You want that? You want what follows that in your clubhouse?

10. Your real problem, Mr. Epstein, is pitching, and we all know it. SSS warnings here, but: Oki is more hittable and more wild this year...Francona is starting to have to rely very heavily on Craig Hansen in the late innings...Justin Masterson is not going to remain undefeated the whole year...Schilling is a ?...Wakefield is Wakefield...Beckett is suddenly allowing HR at his 2006 rate...Buchholz is a ?...none of these problems can be solved by a 43 year-old asshole who's being chased by like 11 government agencies at once and whose blood contains certain mutated proteins heretofore found only in syphilitic sharks.

11. I guess for my final salvo, I shall respond to one of dak's points. He charmingly writes:

The real issue, of course, is steroids. Or cheating. Or lying about cheating? I don't really know. Let's put it this way: the other night, my friend Junior asked me, "Would you want the Red Sox to win the 2008 World Series if, on the same night they clinched, Red Sox DH Barry Bonds tested positive for steroids and HGH and let's say, for the fun of it, black tar heroin?"

Yes. Yes yes. Yes yes yes. I want the Red Sox to win the World Series.

This is lunacy. With this logic, there is no crime, no matter how heinous, that a player on your favorite team could commit that would sour a positive result on the playing field -- an amusingly inane brand of consequentialism usually reserved for budding fascists and Machiavelli enthusiasts whose underdeveloped brains and beatings at the hands of older jocks have driven them to the conclusion that murdering the high school quarterback is actually a utilitarian good.

Why, dak, why? Why allow your team to win at any cost? Are you out of your fucking mind? Great, the Sox won the Series. Now we get fucking SpyGate II for the next 25 years. And every time anyone brings up the Red Sox' World Championships of 2004-2008, instead of remembering Roberts stealing second or Bellhorn's HR or Schilling's sock or coming back from 3-1 down against Cleveland, the first thing everyone remembers is -- how about that time they clinched the Series and that night it came out that Bonds was a one-man farmacia?

With similar logic, dumbass, would you want the Red Sox to win the 2008 WS if on the night they clinched it came out that DH Barry Bonds had fixed the games? That he had personally taken some of the not-reported-to-the-IRS cash (which he got from ripping kids off at autograph sessions) that was originally earmarked for another house for his mistress, and gone to the Cubs' pitchers and said, "I know you guys need money -- what if I give you this untraceable cash in exchange for you blowing the games?" and they'd said: "Okay, that sounds good. We will further embarrass and enrage the city of Chicago for $25,000 a piece." Would you still savor your sweet victory then, dak?

After two WS wins, you'd welcome a third, no matter how bad the scandal that accompanies it? That is insane.

Listen, people, (I forgot whom I'm even talking to at this point), there are a lot of dudes out there who can give you 12.1 VORP. Brandon Moss might be able to give you 12.1 VORP, even appendixless. Coco Crisp might be able to give you 12.1 FRAA. Maybe Youkilis and Drew will step it up in Ortiz's absence. Maybe a rest in the middle of the season will even do him good...

Barry Bonds is a horrorshow. Barry Bonds is the single most hated and divisive and polarizing figure in the history of sports. He's also 43 and hasn't played baseball this year. I want the Red Sox to win the World Series too, but Jesus, man. Come on.

(My high school debate coach taught me that you should end every debate with: "Jesus, man, come on," so I'll stop there.)

*Sorry I called you an asshole.

Labels: barry bonds, baruch spinoza, consequentialism, dak, david ortiz, red sox, theo epstein

Anyone seen that HBO documentary "The Curse of The Bambino"? It's fine, whatever.

After the Scottish Dribbler (you know what I'm talking about), one Bostonian recalls heading out of his house in Newton MA, thinking he'd be going out for a long, solitary walk, only to find hundreds of other Sox-fans-turned-zombies walking the streets. A brokenhearted old man crosses paths and says: "Son, this is the dahkest day in New England since Jack Kennedy was shawt."

That's how I feel about today, after reading this quote.

"We haven't been able to cash it in very much," catcher Jason Varitek said, "but it puts an extra amount of pressure on the other team, which we haven't been able to do. We've got a lot of big donkeys who clog up the bases."

Ugh. Boots.

I guess it's not so bad -- he's kind of making fun of his slow, chunky brethren, and not saying something crazytaint like "Frank Thomas sucks because he doesn't steal bases." But it still hurts.

First Papi on the DL, then Hazel Mae, now this. Rough times.

Labels: big donkeys, clogging up the basepaths, david ortiz, hazel mae, jason varitek, red sox

Look, no one can predict the future. It's the future, dammit, and it's always running away from us. And believe me, I recognize that it's the lowest form of Internet I-told-you-so-ism to copy and paste someone's opinion from a year ago and crow about how ridiculous it looks now. But fuck it, sometimes it's fun to take the low road, especially when that someone's opinion is so emphatically confident. So let's have some fun with it. Wrote one semi-prominent Boston fan/writer, seemingly eons ago:

I could spend the next 3,000 words ranting and raving about the unacceptable performance of the Henry/Theo regime since they won the World Series -- the catastrophic Renteria/Clement signings; lowballing Pedro/Damon, then half-heartedly renewing talks at the last second; overvaluing Beckett (a genuine disappointment) and Crisp (a colossal disappointment); undervaluing their own prospects (Hanley Ramirez and Anibal Sanchez) in the Beckett trade; freezing at this year's trading deadline; dealing Arroyo without knowing about the health of Wells and Foulke; allowing 40-year-old Mike Timlin to pitch in the WBC (he's a walking corpse now); letting Roberts and Cabrera go; handing Beckett that unconscionable $30 million extension (I yelped out loud when I saw the headline); and we haven't even mentioned last winter's soap opera with Theo yet -- but I don't want to ruin my chances of getting a key to the office next season. So let's just say that everyone did a swell job and I fully support every moronic decision that was made. Now where's my key?

The date on this is about 15 months ago. Whoops! Maybe next year the front office will have turned into morons again, though. We'll have to wait and see. In the meantime, here's something from me for intrepid Internetters to copy and paste into their blogs 15 months from now:

If Journeyman doesn't sweep the Emmys next year, I will eat my hat.

Labels: journeyman the tv show (not the sports term), red sox

It's all happening at once, people. Let's savor this, the day after the final day of baseball, before we all begin obsessively following Memphis Grizzlies basketball and Columbus Blue Jackets hockey and Columphis Blue Grizzlies Lazyjokemashupball.

HatGuy, your entry please?

The Red Sox had generations of teams that were characterized by 25 players taking 25 cabs. No wonder they spent 86 years between championships. Now, they’ve won twice in four seasons by becoming a band of brothers who seem to genuinely enjoy each other’s company. They have stars, but you think of them as a true team.

Of course! Fuck! Why'd they wait 86 years? Friends are what win in baseball! Friendshipball! Watch out, Red Sox. Your 2008 favorites for the championship: my uncle Steve and his friend Mike. So what if they're only two guys instead of twenty-five and Mike has a shriveled left arm and Steve drinks crystal meth dissolved in Mountain Dew Game Fuel, the Halo 3-themed Mountain Dew. They go deep-sea fishing on the weekends! They're friends!

Now let's readjust our monocles and look at the bread around this idiocy sandwich:

That’s why he won’t end up in Boston. The Red Sox had generations of teams that were characterized by 25 players taking 25 cabs. No wonder they spent 86 years between championships. Now, they’ve won twice in four seasons by becoming a band of brothers who seem to genuinely enjoy each other’s company. They have stars, but you think of them as a true team. To add a person who has never had many friends in the clubhouses he’s inhabited doesn’t make sense.

Zero guesses as to whom HatGuy is referencing. Negative three guesses. Yep, you got it, and I took guesses away from you before you made any. There you have it. Not enough friends = no deal. I like the image of A-Rod calling up his old teammates, begging them to tell the Red Sox that yes indeed, I, Hank Blalock/Jay Buhner/Bobby Ayala/Hideki Irabu, was A-Rod's friend you better believe it.

I am undecided whether A-Rod will be worth the hundreds of millions of dollars he will be seeking, but the number of friends he has on Facebook will be low on my priority list.

Now you, Jon Heyman, sally forth with your offering!

The Red Sox disproved the old "crapshoot'' theory espoused by a lot of folks who keep losing in the playoffs. The best team won in 2007, and that is no fluke.

Look, I'm not losing in the playoffs. My favorite team isn't losing in the playoffs. Joe Torre has won a lot in the playoffs. Joe Torre often disagree, but he and I agree on two things: Top Chef is now more enjoyable than Project Runway and as long as the series remain as brief as they are, the playoffs are distinctly, perversely crapshootish. The best team probably won in 2007, but how about just last year? 83-78 sound right to you, Jon? Was that a fluke?

And finally, we grow closer to the emergence of our special guest star for the evening, who appears courtesy of Bob DiCesare:

Rodriguez appeared in the American League Championship Series twice with the Mariners, once with the Yanks, and distinguished himself in none of the three.

Exactly right. None of the three except for the first two, in which he slugged .773 and .516 and slammed a combined 4 HR and 10 RBI. And hey, in that last one he OBP-ed .353 and hit a horrible, team-damaging solo home run.

One number echoes within the mountains of glorious statistics compiled by Rodriguez throughout his career:

13.7, his earth-shattering WARP3!

zero, his number of accrued World Series at-bats.

Oh.

Fact is, the Yankees are in far greater need of a Scott Brosius, a Bernie Williams, a Paul O’Neill than an uninspired (and uninspiring) A-Rod.

Ladies and gentlemen, the Brosius nostalgia tour continues. May his glorious name live on throughout the offseason and for all offseasons throughout eternity!

Labels: a-rod, HatGuy, jon heyman, mike celizic, red sox, scott brosius

I stole that joke from Jay Mohr.

Pags has a new little ditty over at The BaseLine Report. In this one, he lists every transaction Theo Epstein has made since he became the Sox' GM, and rates them on a scale of 1 to 10. I think he's just baiting us, frankly, but consider me baited.

1/14/03 Claimed 1B/OF Kevin Millar off unconditional release waivers from the Florida Marlins.

The Sox pleaded with [Kevin Millar] for months not to go to Japan as if he were the second coming of Babe Ruth. Millar was brought in for his bat but after a solid first half of the 2003 season, struggled tremendously for the next two and a half seasons as a member of the Red Sox. Because of his personality and cozy relationship with both the media and the fans some of his shortcomings are overlooked. Millar was a well below average major league first baseman. He peeked in 2003 with 25 home runs but declined rapidly over his three years culminating in a 2005 season when he hit only nine home runs.
Grade: 3.5

In 2004 Kevin Millar hit .297/.383/.474. An .857 OPS (117 OPS+). That's pretty effing good for $2.65m. In 2003 he made $2m and hit 25 HR. And in order to get him they pissed off some Japanese dudes but actually gave up: nothing.

My Grade for the Millar Deal: 7.0
My Grade for Pags' Evaluation: 38.8 (on the 115-point FJM Writing Scale)

7/29/03 Acquired RHP Scott Williamson from the Cincinnati Reds in exchange for minor league LHP Phil Dumatrait, a minor league player to be named and cash considerations.

This was theoretically the solution to the bullpen problem that had killed Boston all year long. This was easy to predict even before the season started when Epstein decided to Bill James’ “bullpen ace” model for the 2003 season...Maybe [Epstein] was too busy using up the sixth highest payroll in baseball to sign sabermetric studs like Jeremy Giambi and Kevin Millar to address the bull pen properly...Williamson takes the fall because this move symbolizes the lack of a shut down closer in the pen and the feeling that the Sox did not need to acquire one during the season.
Grade: 1

It's hard to judge whether this is a good evaluation of the Williamson deal, because the smoke coming out of Pags' ears due to his fury at non-traditional thinking is clouding my keyboard. More on this insane misreading of Bill James' "Bullpen Ace" model in a minute. For now, allow me only to say that Phil Dumatrait is 26 and made his MLB debut this year, giving up a tidy 39 hits in his first 18 innings. So, I think we can say that this deal is not a "1," because Epstein didn't give anything up except cash. I will also add that in 2004, SWilly gave up 11 hits in 28.2 IP, posting a 388 ERA+. A very small sample size, to be sure, and the guy was always hurt and kind of unreliable. But he gave the '03 and '04 teams some crazy hi-leverage innings, and the image of people flailing at his ceiling-to-floor curve is one of my most lasting memories. (Save your emails, people. Not every single sentence I write has to be fact-based.)

If you're into stats instead of anecdotal musings: in the 2003 postseason, Williamson pitched in eight games, and went 2-0 with 3 saves. He threw 8 innings, giving up 3 hits, 1 run, 3 walks, and 14 (!) Ks. You're telling me that and the 28 innings he threw in 2004 wasn't worth Phil Dumatrait? Oh -- no, you're not. You're actually telling me that on the 10-point PagsScale that trade gets the worst possible score.

My Grade for Williamson: 7
My Grade for Pags' Write-Up of Williamson: -40 Trumpets (on the -500 to 600 Trumpet evaluation system; remember -- 355 is highest)

7/31/03 Acquired RHP Jeff Suppan, RHP Brandon Lyon and RHP Anastacio Martinez from the Pittsburgh Pirates in exchange for INF Freddy Sanchez, LHP Mike Gonzalez and cash considerations.

This was a deadline day deal in which Epstein looked to bolster the starting rotation. The hope was to gain something in the short term while giving something up in the long term. Turned out they were half right: they gave up something in the long term. Suppan started ten games for the Sox and posted a 3-4 record with a 5.57 ERA. Sanchez on the other hand is a two time all star and also the 2006 NL batting champ with a .344 average. He was one of the most valuable prospects in the entire organization and was given up for a pitcher who ultimately hurt the Red Sox. While Suppan would later find some success in the national league, he was a huge bust in Boston and Theo totally misused one of his most valuable trading pieces.
Grade: 2

A lot = bad about this. Yes, Suppan sucked after the trade. But he was the best available starter, and the Sox badly needed one. Second, Sanchez was a decent prospect, but he was blocked in the Red Sox system by Hanley Ramirez, so he was expendable. Third, this was actually a great deal, because originally the Sox were getting Mike Gonzalez, a lefty reliever who could have greatly helped them. I quote from Baseball America:

The Red Sox and Pirates accomplished two things with the trade on Thursday that sent Jeff Suppan, Brandon Lyon and Double-A righthander Anastacio Martinez to Boston and two Triple-A players, infielder Freddy Sanchez and lefthander Mike Gonzalez, plus $500,000 to Pittsburgh. The Red Sox got a much-needed starter in Suppan, while the Pirates got rid of his salary. Secondly, the teams straightened out their July 22 trade.

In that deal, Boston got Scott Sauerbeck and Gonzalez for Lyon and Martinez. The Pirates said Lyon had fraying in his elbow and placed him on the disabled list on July 25. The Red Sox maintained he was healthy and had pitched for them two days before the trade. The net effect of the two transactions is that Boston gets Sauerbeck and Suppan for Sanchez.

When the Bucs started hissing that Lyon had arm problems, the Sox essentially gave them Gonzalez back to soothe their huffy nerves. But the way Pags writes it up here, it seems like the Sox traded Gonzalez and Sanchez for Suppan, which = no. Also, getting to two All-Star Games when you play for the Pirates doesn't mean very much at all, methinks.

My Grade for the Suppan Trade: 4
My Grade for "3:10 to Yuma," Which I Saw Last Night, on the 1-18 Pagliarulos Scale: 14 Pagliarulos

11/14/03 RHP Mike Timlin to a one-year contract.

Epstein game Timlin a two and a half million dollar deal to help improve the bull pen. Timlin was a veteran pitcher who helped with a lot of the younger arms in the pen. On the field he was a reliable, but not shut down, middle relief pitcher. His playoff experience would prove to be valuable down the stretch.
Grade: 5

In 2003 Mike Timlin threw 83 innings with a 133 ERA+ and a 65/9 K/BB ratio and a 1.02 WHIP. How is that not a "shut down" middle reliever? That's a better WHIP than Frankie Rodriguez has had in 3 of the last 4 years. And 83 innings is a lot of innings. In 2004 he threw 76 innings with a 1.23 WHIP. Not overwhelming, but pretty good. And by the way, that deal in 2003 was for $850,000 plus incentives. $2.5m was for 2004. So for $850,000, Theo got a guy with a WHIP of 1.02 over 83 innings. That's a really really really good deal. And every year since, he's been on a 1-year deal, so there's no long-term commitment. Also, as if I need to keep going, the guy's got a 1.12 WHIP in 57 innings this year at age 41. What don't you like about the Timlin deal, dummy?

My Grade for the Timlin Deal: 8
My Grade on my Junior Year AP History Report on the Role of "Neo-Yellow Journalism" in U.S. Involvement in Central American Military Conflicts: A-minus

12/13/03 Signed free-agent RHP Keith Foulke to a three-year deal that includes a vested option for a fourth year.

Real quick: the answer is 9. Maybe 8, but almost definitely 9. Keith Foulke should have been the ALCS MVP. He might have been the Sox' team MVP for 2004. His 2005 and '06 were disappointing and injury-riddled, but the guy was lights-out in the regular season, and sold out his body and soul in some of the most hi-lev innings in team history in the playoffs and came through every single time. So, 8-9, and I'd even kick it up to 10 if I were feeling saucy.

Foulke was brought to Boston to be the permanent shut down closer that the Sox decided they didn’t need in 2003. This was blatantly admitting that Bill James’s “bullpen ace” model just didn’t work.

No. No, sorry. That's not true. Foulke was a "bullpen ace," and the actual theory is that the bullpen ace shouldn't always just pitch the ninth inning no matter what the situation is, but rather should be used in the most hi-lev situations, be they in the 6th, 7th, 8th, what have you. So, no, acquiring a bullpen ace was not "blatantly admitting" that the "bullpen ace" model didn't work; it was an attempt to get a better bullpen ace in order to more effectively use the "bullpen ace" model. And maybe if you had thought about what you were writing for ten nanoseconds, or had bothered to read about the theory, you wouldn't have embarrassed yourself by writing that.

Foulke was being paid like a premium closer making over eighteen million dollars in his three years. Unfortunately he only pitched like a premium closer for one year. Foulke was everything he was supposed to be in 2004 and exceeded all expectations when he dominated the post season opposition. He had a miserable season in 2005 and by the first week of the 2006 season he had lost his job to Jonathan Papelbon. While Foulke has to be given credit for the 2004 championship, he was being paid for three years and only performed in one of them. The Sox did not get good value for Foulke at all.
Grade: 4

How can you say they did not get value for Foulke? They gave up nothing but cash, and in 2004 they got a .94 WHIP in 83 innings. Then, in a postseason that featured back-to-back extra inning games with the Yankees, when the margin for error was exactly zero, he threw 14 innings, giving up 7 hits, and getting 19 Ks. He gave up one run in those 14 innings.

Keith Foulke won the World Series for the Red Sox. I'm not kidding. Go here and read about what he did in the ALCS, if you don't believe me. They never get out of that series -- not even close -- if not for Keith Foulke. The rest of his tenure fell flat, but that one year was easily worth $18m. Easily.

My Grade for the Foulke Deal: 9
My Grade for the Folk Implosion Album "Dare to be Surprised": 6.8

12/16/03 Acquired IF Mark Bellhorn from Rockies for a player to be named.

Bellhorn was almost the same player as Todd Walker. He was below average defensively and had no range at all. Offensively he was a downgrade. While he did come up with some big hits in the 2004 playoffs, he often went through painful droughts where he wouldn’t be able to hit the ball for weeks at a time. The one positive of the Bellhorn deal was that he came cheap and the Sox were able to get away with him at second for one year.
Grade: 4.5

Theo Epstein paid Mark Bellhorn $490,000 in 2004 and he gave them 6.4 WARP3. Plus, the dude was so the Anti-ARod, banging a key 3-run homer in Game Six of the ALCS against the Yankees in New York. And then another go-ahead late-inning dong in WS Game One. ARod would never do that because he is a choker! He chokes and Bellhorn did not. Bellhorn is better than ARod. Jeter Rules!

($490,000 for six and a half wins = well done, Mr. GM.)

My Grade for the Bellhorn Deal: 6.4
Price for the Bell-horn Composite Wrist Brace: $19.99

12/17/04 Signed SS Edgar Renteria to a four-year contract with a club option for 2009.

This was a classic case of Theo looking only at the talent of a player and not taking into account the player’s make-up and how he would fit into the team. Edgar Renteria is an above average major league shortstop, but he could not play in Boston.

And what, exactly, about Edgar Renteria's past would have indicated this to be the case?

The entire season was a mess all around. At the plate he hit .276 and racked up 100 strikeouts while putting up weak power numbers. He wasn’t any better in the field committing a career worst thirty errors. However, it was letting go of Cabrera that was more of a problem than signing Renteria. Cabrera’s career has taken off since his time in Boston and every Sox fan still dreams of him playing shortstop for the Sox.

I do not dream of that thing.

OCab 2005 EqA: .255
Renteria 2005 EqA: .263

I loved OCab in the stretch run of 2004, because he was fun and energetic and played good defense and did funny handshakes with every member of the team, and also because they traded Nomar to get him, and if I didn't distract myself constantly by saying "Cabrera is good!" I would've ended up crying a lot. Cabrera put up some great AB in the postseason. But if he had been signed to a big 4-year deal, and had put up OPS+ of 82, 95, and 101 in the next three years (like he's done in LA), the love affair would've ended right quick.

Renteria got paid like one of the best shortstops in the game but his play was far from that assessment. Like his former manager Tony La Russa predicted, Renteria struggled mightily under the pressure of Boston.
Grade: 1

Yes. We should all listen to Tony La Russa more. That's the problem.

My Grade for the Renteria Deal: 2
My Grade for Tony La Russa -- Just, Like, An Overall Grade for His Whole "Deal": 0

12/23/04 Signed RHP Wade Miller to a one-year contract.

This was a puzzling move. Epstein decided to take a risk on the often injured Miller. Miller lived up to his reputation making only sixteen starts on the year due to injury. He had a 4-4 record with a 4.95 ERA, average numbers at best.
Grade: 2.5

It was a 1 year, $1.5m contract laden with incentives. For a guy who at one point was dominant. And for whom they had zero expectations. It didn't work out. They non-tendered him. These are exactly the kind of deals that teams with money to throw around should be making.

My Grade for the Wade Miller Deal: Eh
My Wade for the Grade Diller Meal: N/A (nonsense)

There's more of this crap, but I'm going to dinner now. (I do like how he labels the Lugo and Drew deals as "1"s, after one year of 4- and 5-year deals, respectively.)

Labels: mike pagliarulo, red sox

Close up shop. Blow the team sky-high. Take that 81-55 record and shove it up your pee holes, because it's meaningless.

As we all know, the World Series trophy is awarded every year to the team with the fieriest passions. Who will scream and yell and curse the most? Who will fill the dugout with tears of insanity? Who will give the most hugs? These are the questions that will be answered in October, when we once again crown The Most Emotional, And Therefore Best, Team In Baseball.

Unfortunately, Red Sox, Eric Wilbur has decided that that team will not be you this year.

They have the best record in baseball (barely), but they aren't baseball's best team.

Tell me about it. Just look at these run differentials!

Red Sox +184
Yankees +144
Angels +91
Indians +77

What a bunch of losers!

They have the best pitching in the majors, but with a lineup of increasingly frustrating incompetence.

And we all know the old saying: hitting wins in the playoffs.

They are going to win the American League East for the first time since 1995. They may even have home-field advantage throughout October.

But there is no way these Red Sox are winning the World Series.

There you have it. Eric Wilbur is offically putting the odds of the Red Sox, the team with the best record and best run differential in baseball, at 0%. 0 out of 30. 0 out of a million. Zero.

I'm going to go ahead and say that if the Red Sox make the playoffs, their odds of winning the Series are about 1 in 8. But let's read on. I'm sure Eric has some sound baseball reasons behind eliminating them altogether on August 30.

As far and as much as a fire for playing the game is concerned, the Yankees, Angels, and Indians all have to be considered superior American League squads.

Yep. Did it. Changed my mind. Forgot about fire. My bad. Can't win shit without fire. Gotta be fiery. Fire it up, Yankees, Angels, and Indians! You're all contenders for the World Series this year! Of course, as is the case every year, the World Series will be awarded to Ozzie Guillen and Ozzie Guillen alone.

First-place Los Angeles put on the clamps, and shut down the Mariners to take control of the West with a 5 1/2-game lead over Seattle. The Indians put any lingering thoughts the Twins might have had about getting back into the race by sweeping and putting Minnesota in a nine-game hole.

Very good use of the little-known MLB loophole (Rule 35.17 in the rulebook): "Performance in the last series of August shall be used to determine World Series championship eligibility, pursuant to Fieriness Clause in Rule 42.9." Red Sox got swept by the Yankees, as you recall, so they are ineligible for the World Series this year. Too bad, fans.

Additional note: the Yankees (run differential of +144) are a much, much better team than both the Mariners (+4) and the Twins (+23).

Your Boston Red Sox? They go to the Bronx and show all the passion of a weasel on Xanax in getting swept by the Yankees, who made them look foolish offensively and even suspect on the mound, where Boston has honed its greatest strength this season.

Is a weasel a particularly passionless creature? It seems like this joke would've worked better with an especially docile animal. My pitches:

sloth (a little obvious, but point gets made)
basset hound (droopy face, droopy eyes, droopy ears; slow-moving)
armadillo (these things don't seem that passionate -- prove me wrong)
Asian person (get a pulse, am I right, guys?)

Auxiliary pitch:

instead of Xanax, how about "(passionless animal or Asian person) on downers"?

It's a different brand of baseball come autumn, and it's now completely evident that the Red Sox don't have that (bleep) 'em attitude that defined their 2004 predecessors. The Yankees have it. The Angels have it. The Indians seem like they have it. The Red Sox? I give you J.D. Drew.

2007 Red Sox: Good pitching, not enough fuck 'em
2007 Yankees: Rag-taggest, underdoggest, scrappiest, fuck 'em-iest team ever!

Doesn't it seem like J.D. Drew is the quintessential fuck 'em player? The guy clearly doesn't give a shit, ever. The always helpful Urban Dictionary defines "fuck 'em" as "In a state in which a person could careless [sic] about a person, place, thing or a group." J.D. Drew cares so little about baseball it looks like he's on the verge of taking a nap in between pitches. If you look closely at his face, he actually mouths the words "fuck 'em" on every feeble missed swing he takes.

For all the warranted criticism hammered upon the underperforming outfielder, his emotionless approach to the game has seemingly become this team's calling card.

J.D. Drew = Emotion Cancer

For all the passion emitted from guys like Josh Beckett, Kevin Youkilis, Jonathan Papelbon, and David Ortiz, on the whole the Red Sox are a squad that comes to the office, does their business with zombie-like efficiency, says all the right things afterward, and then has fans scratching their heads wondering if there is anything special here at all. That's J.D. Drew, and that is the Red Sox.

There you go. It's not enough to have the best record in baseball. It's not enough to have the best pitching staff. They're not special enough. Not special like the turd of a team the St. Louis Cardinals were last year. Not fire-breathing passionate personality monsters like the dynastic San Antonio Spurs are in basketball. Not emotional, constantly weeping, frighteningly volatile like Bill Belichick and the Patriots.

I also love that he names four very passionate essential Red Sox players in an article decrying the lack of passion on the team. I mean, seriously, let's do an inventory real quick:

Passionate (Special, World Series-worthy, Fiery, Prone To Being On Fire, Combustible, Flammable, Inflammable)
Beckett
Youkilis
Papelbon
Ortiz
Schilling
Varitek
Pedroia
Lowell (borderline, but he's a Cagey Veteran who sublimates his fire into Lunchpailism)
Wakefield
Gagne (facial hair! curses in French!)
Crisp (diving catches! leaps into walls!)
Buchholz (hugged a lot of people last night!)
Tavarez (once murdered a drifter with a mini-screwdriver!)

Dispassionate (Not Special, Emotionally Cancerous, Membership On Team Automatically Disqualifies Team For World Series)

Drew
Manny
Lugo
Matsuzaka (Japanese robot)

Honestly: Red Sox, passionate or not? You make the call.

Curt Schilling came out of New York with the best outing of any starter, but was victimized greatly by a Manny Ramirez-less lineup that had the following 6-9 hitters: Drew, Jason Varitek, Eric Hinske, Alex Cora. Beckett pitched well when he needed to wriggle out of jams, but 13 hits?

Disregard this paragraph; we're talking about who's going to win the World Series, not about baseball stuff.

Daisuke Matsuzaka at this point is an enigma, and has not had a memorable, step-up, "wow" performance in his rookie season other than a recent 1-0 outing at Cleveland.

Would've rewritten to say "Daisuke Matsuzaka is at this point an inscrutable, crafty, math-genius enigma ... "

Also, re: "wow" games -- how about that complete game, one run affair against the vaunted Tiger offense? How about a span of four consecutive games where he allowed a total of two runs (and in the process struck out 8, 9, 8, and 9)? How about the month of June, when he had a 1.59 ERA? (I guess that doesn't count because there were some National League teams mixed in, and everyone knows you do not play National League teams in the process of winning the World Series.) Is anyone wowed by the fact that he's struck out 174 Major League batters in 176.1 innings?

The days of late-inning heroics are long gone; the celebrations of leaping men in uniform at home plate a thing of the past.

This is the same group of guys who scored six in the ninth to beat Baltimore, and there were plenty of leaping men in uniform last night, if I recall.

That was the identity of the Red Sox these past few years, more than often bailed out by Ortiz. What is this team's identity?

Best record in baseball. Good team. Good pitching. Solid starters, excellent bullpen.

We've sought so long and hard for one that by now it has become evident that it doesn't really have one. Theo Epstein wanted to rid himself of the "Idiot" culture, but he has replaced it with a collection so vanilla in attitude that one has to wonder what the consensus is when adversity is placed in front of the OPS objective.

Not to get all Michiko Kakutani here or anything, but how can an "objective" encounter "adversity"? Can an "objective" really reach a "consensus"? Can an "attitude" be "vanilla"? That's just weird. A lot of abstract nouns doing a lot of active things in there, Wilbur.

Where's the fire? Where's the passion?

Mark my words: Tim Duncan will never win a championship. Pete Sampras will never win a tournament. John Stockton sucked balls. Ivan Lendl was so bad at tennis whenever he touched a tennis ball it would explode and kill fourteen innocent bystanders. Unless you scream and curse and cry and pump your fist and chop your groin all at the same time, you will never be good at sports.

The Yankees welcomed the Red Sox into their home and were ready to pounce, even after falling one night earlier to Detroit, 16-0. Their zeal was evident from pitch one on Tuesday.

Their zeal was evident in that they won. They won the games. That's why this article was written. If the Sox had taken one or two of the games, regardless of how passionate they looked while doing it, this article doesn't exist. Winning. Winning is important. Winning makes guys leap into each others' arms. Winning makes David Ortiz crush people with bear hugs. Winning at sports.

Now, before we get out of hand, let's be fair and rewind the clock. It was Sept. 17-19 of '04 when the Red Sox invaded Yankee Stadium for three, starting with a thrilling 3-2 win on Friday night, and ending with embarrassing 12-5 and 11-4 losses the next two days. The next weekend, the Yanks made Pedro Martinez their adopted son.

One month later, none of it mattered.

Way to disprove your own article.

Maybe we're being a bit too revisionist, erroneously remembering the 2004 squad as a group that could change water into wine, slay the dragons that unwelcomingly inhabit the Charles, and accurately able to translates the mayor's jabberings. But still, that team had a certain undeniable ardor that this edition is severely lacking.

New sports word: ardor! Ardor: does your team have it? A short radio play:

Joe Buck: Well, Tim, you have to like the Red Sox' starting pitching and bullpen, but how do you feel about their ardor?

Tim McCarver: Ardor is a funny thing, Joe. It's like Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart said about pornography: "I know it when I see it." And with these Red Sox, I just don't see it.

JB: How do you know it when you see it, Tim?

TM: For me, it's when you see the dick going in.

(ten minutes of silence)

TM: Oh. I see. You were talking about ardor.

"You know what happens when you wake a sleeping giant," Papelbon said yesterday after the Chamberlain incident.

Yes. But whether the Red Sox are indeed a snoozing leviathan or indolent group of nondescript ballplayers remains the question.

Hey Eric Wilbur, indolent means "slothful, lazy, idle." You really think a large percentage of Red Sox players are slothful, lazy, and idle? Okay, dude. Have fun telling them that.

Plus, nondescript? Tell me: which team, other than the Yankees, has more descript players than the fucking Boston fucking Red Sox? We're talking descript as hell here. Ortiz, Schilling, Manny, Dice-K, Papelbon, Beckett. These guys are unique, superfamous uberstars. Even the role players are descript: Youkilis is Moneyball-famous, Pedroia is three feet tall, Coco Crisp has a funny name, Wakefield throws a knuckler, Varitek is supposedly a god of intangibles. I'll tell you who's nondescript: the Pittsburgh Pirates.

They're one of the best teams in the game, no doubt, and have an outside shot at a 100-win season. But be honest, can you really imagine this group as World Series champions?

Yes. Broken record: very good pitching, decent hitting, dependable bullpen. No one's a lock, of course, but they have a shot, sure.

On the flip side, nobody expected Detroit and St. Louis to be in the World Series last year after the way they played much of August.

Way to disprove your own article, part II.

But the fact that there is something so maddeningly lacking on the Red Sox in terms of fire and inspiration still has much of the baseball world looking elsewhere when trying to pinpoint a winner. They can do it.

No, you can't backtrack and say they can do it now. You can't. I'm not allowing it. The whole thesis of this article is that they can't do it because they're not emotional. They're not special. You're not buying it back here.

They just have shown us no reason why anyone should think they could.

81-55. AL-best 3.75 ERA. Fourth in MLB in runs scored. No reason.

Guys scream and pump their fists and point to the sky and give each other funny handshakes when they win. For the last time, it's not the other way around.

Labels: eric wilbur, fire, food metaphors, fuck 'em, fuck the heck, oh my god, passion, red sox, that can't be right

Yesterday the White Sox dropped two games in dismal fashion to the Red Sox. Ozzie Guillen, post-game:

"A tough day for everyone. Pitching, hitting, defense. You just name it. I think that's one of the reasons they're in first place and we're in last place."

Pitching, hitting, defense. One of the reasons the Red Sox are in first place and the White Sox are in last.

He thinks.

Labels: ozzie guillen, red sox, white sox

Of course, no one should listen to sports talk radio. Clinical studies have definitively shown that even brief exposure to ESPN Radio causes memory loss and reduction of cognitive function in lab mice.

So I was just in my car listening to a man whose name I believe is Erik Kuselias (Wikipedia helpfully notes that this man "is a member of Mensa International, the society for people with high IQs"). I have very little to say about Erik, except to plaintively ask him, Why would you ask Stephen A. Smith questions about baseball?

I didn't transcribe any of this, but I believe in about a (loud) five-minute span, Mr. Smith said approximations of the following things:

I'm not really a baseball guy

I'm a big Yankees fan

I'd like to see the Yankees get Gagne, or the Mets

(on whether the Red Sox need Jermaine Dye) David Ortiz gave me a hug

The Boston Red Sox KNOW HOW TO WIN

The Red Sox play WillieBall

The Yankees rely on home runs

The Red Sox steal bases, hit and run, and again, KNOW HOW TO WIN

He also once (loudly, confidently) referred to the Boston Red Sox as the Boston Celtics.

Just for the record:

Yankees SB: 80
Red Sox SB: 56

Yankees WillieBall Quotient: 9.36
Red Sox WillieBall Quotient: -3.42

Erik Kuselias, you are a member of Mensa International, the society for people with high IQs. Please, do not ask this man about baseball again.

Labels: erik kuselias, mensa international the society for people with high IQs, red sox, sports talk radio, stephen a. smith, willieball, yankees

Only MSNBC's Michael Ventre -- rapidly becoming my favorite sportswriter in America -- dares to ask the question that is on everyone's mind: are apples like oranges?

Red Sox on Verge of Mickelson-like Collapse?

For the record, Phil Mickelson has won three majors. This year alone he has won at TPC at Sawgrass and the Pebble Beach Pro-Am. He's #2 in the world, and #2 on the money list.

He is also a professional golfer, which means he has nothing to do with baseball.

The Boston Red Sox have been doing business a lot longer than Phil Mickelson has been alive.

Yet I can’t help but think of the Red Sox as the Phil Mickelson of baseball.

Excellent thesis statement. You're the Stephen Jay Gould of MSNBC free-lancers.

Lefty had once held the title of Best Golfer Never to Have Won a Major. Then in 2004, he won a major, the Masters. He added to his credentials by winning the PGA Championship in 2005, and another Masters in 2006. Life was good.

But it appears Mickelson had intended only to visit his sport’s peak, not set up camp there. Since then, he collapsed in the 2006 U.S. Open at Winged Foot. This year, he faltered badly in the Scottish Open, a warm-up tournament for the British Open, then missed the cut at Carnoustie.

Just so I am clear. He won the Masters for the second time last year. He lost in the final round of the Open, missed the cut at the British, and now he is terrible?

If you stare at Mickelson long enough, you can see Mike Torrez. If you look even harder, you can see Bill Buckner.

Oooh -- I love those things. Here's a neat one -- if you stare hard enough you see a toucan!

This bizarre metonymic Mickelson-as-All-Chokers trope is flimsy, man. The guy's won three majors in three years. Also, he is a golfer, and the Red Sox are a baseball team. That should be the most obvious reason why the comparison doesn't work, given the -- shall we say -- significant differences in the two sports. But hell, I admire your can-do attitude. Let's keep rolling.

And if you study the Red Sox these days, the phenomenon is mutual. Stare intently at the wobbly American League East leaders and you’ll see Mickelson, smacking errant tee shots and bogeying three of the final five holes at Loch Lomond.

I'm going to make a good-faith effort to back you on this journalistic suicide mission.

The Red Sox have tripped a bit recently, yes. They are basically .500 since June 1. But they just took 3 of 4 from the best home team in the AL and have a 7.5 game lead in the AL East. BP puts their odds of winning the AL East at 95.9%, and 98.67% to make the playoffs.

Phil Mickelson...is a golfer...who...forget it. I give up. This is insane.

It may not be completely fair to compare the two, since

One is a baseball team and one is a golfer?

Boston’s bustling infirmary has had something to do with its recent vulnerability.

Oh.

David Ortiz is just recently back from resting a strained shoulder. Curt Schilling is rehabbing in the minors because of right shoulder tendinitis. Jon Lester recently returned to the team after battling a form of lymphoma. J.D. Drew has constant hamstring issues. Matt Clement is still working his way back from offseason shoulder surgery. Brendan Donnelly is recovering from a strained forearm.

Clement was never in the 2007 gameplan. Donnelly was pitching pretty well when he went down, but in his absence the bullpen hasn't missed a beat. Lester returned from his cancer scare, and ahead of schedule, so that weakens your argument. Drew's problems have not seemingly been injury-related. Ortiz missed like four games and has a .991 OPS this year.

Mickelson had a wrist thing a little while back. I think with a little tinkering, this "injury" run could be rejiggered to support your claim. Think about it.

But the Red Sox have shown disturbing signs — for their anguished fans, at least — that they might not feel comfortable at the top. Despite their World Series breakthrough in 2004, their natural tendency to collapse appears to be surfacing.

Their "natural tendency to collapse." Because a team's inherent nature transcends ownership and personnel changes from generation to generation. Because baseball franchises are like the four Hogwarts Houses in Harry Potter books. (You're a Slytherin, Michael Ventre. A Slytherin.)

Before Thursday’s games, they held a 6.5 game lead over the second-place New York Yankees, who had been stuck in as large a mental quagmire as they have ever had to try and overcome. It marked the first time since May 11 that Boston had held a lead of fewer than seven games. The Red Sox held a 12-game lead in early July, but the Yankees have somehow asserted themselves.

Excellent analysis. They didn't "somehow assert themselves." They began performing exactly the way their ExWL numbers predicted they would. In fact, they are still underperforming by about 5-6 games, so we can expect that their good play will continue. The Red Sox, meanwhile, had been very slightly overperforming, but in general just hit a slump. Kind of like Luis Delís between the '87 World Championships and the '93 Central American and Caribbean Games.

And despite the fact that the Red Sox had won five straight before falling on Wednesday against Cleveland, the omens are present.

For the motherhumping record, there is no such thing as: curses, omens, augurs, ghouls, ghosts, True Yankees, or franchises being haunted by fat ex-ballplayers who would have no reason to haunt said franchise, since the trade of the fat player led to him becoming the most famous athlete, maybe, in history.

But please, on with the omen discussion.

For instance, on Wednesday night Boston lost to Fausto Carmona and the Indians, 1-0. Nothing to be ashamed of, yet it was unsettling that Josh Beckett threw an outstanding game but lost on one measly mistake to Franklin Gutierrez, which turned into a solo shot. And it was Beckett’s first road loss since last September.

So spooky! So omen-ish!

The night before, The Sox won 1-0 on several bloop singles that fell just out of the reach of Indians' fielders.

Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire burn, and caldron bubble!

Also, Fausto Carmona is a very good pitcher. He defeated another team by pitching excellently.

Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire burn, and caldron bubble!

Not a problem. Nothing to panic over. Sometimes a black cat crosses your path, and most of the time it means nothing. Most of the time.

No, all of the time it means nothing. I know I'm losing my argument thread here, but now Ventre is crossing over from bad analogy to superstitious piffle. And I don't care if he's winking and "goofing around" and "being lighthearted." Black cats are not any different from other cats. And even in a universe where I good-naturedly agree to play along with the idea that there are "omens" in baseball, this isn't a fucking omen. Being defeated by an excellent pitcher 1-0 in game 3 of a series in which you win the other three games is not an omen of anything except that you are a good baseball team -- indeed, you have the best record in baseball -- and that you should be happy with the results of that series.

Meanwhile, the Yankees, a team some consider the luckiest men on the planet — usually the people who believe that live in, or hail from, the New England area — have managed to avert a complete oil spill of a season and are making a run.

They have gotten their share of good breaks in the last ten years or so, yes. They are also a $200m+ collection of excellent players who, recently, have been absolutely destroying the baseball in exactly the way that mathematics and reason predicts they should. They have also been pitching better. And thus: winning. To draw an analogy for you, Ventre: the Yankees are currently performing much like Carolina Klüft during her magical run at the 2003 World Championships in Paris.

The Yankees trailed by 14.5 games in late May, but they’ve won 11 of their last 13.
Probably nothing to fret over. I’m sure the Red Sox will be cool. Historically, they’re known for their composure down the stretch, especially with the numeral “14” involved. They had a 14-game lead in 1978, but it disappeared down the stretch, and Bucky Dent put an exclamation mark on the disaster with a game-winning home run over the Green Monster in a playoff game.

Yes, that is factually accurate. Tell me, though -- how is the number "14" involved here, though? Because at one point, several months ago, the lead was 14.5 games? And that means that this year and 1978 are linked, portentously? Excellent. By the way, man -- I enjoyed your movie.

But it’s silly to toss and turn over what might happen in the future. After all, what are the chances that the Boston Red Sox will somehow fail to live up to their promise? They have legions of devoted fans who live and die with their exploits. Why in the world would a team disappoint their fans like that?

What are you trying to prove here? I honestly don't understand. Are you blaming the team for falling short in past seasons? And insinuating that they did it, like, intentionally?

David Ortiz has 16 home runs this season. Last year he finished with 54. I’m sure that if he bears down and goes on a tear he can match that total. I wouldn’t worry about it.

The team signed Drew to a five-year contract in the offseason worth $70 million. Lately he’s been limping a lot. So far he’s batting .247, with six home runs and 38 RBI. But he’ll catch fire soon, I’m sure.

...this season [Curt Schilling] is just 6-4 with a 4.20 ERA in 15 starts, and he hasn’t pitched since June 18. Yet I feel certain that the 40-year-old veteran of 21 major-league seasons will spring to life soon and power the Red Sox to victory like he did in the days when he was pitching in Arizona alongside another invincible war horse, Randy Johnson.

Michael Ventre is sarcastically pointing out that: Ortiz is having an off-year (.340 EqA, .991 OPS), JD Drew is having an off-year (true) and Curt Schilling isn't as good as he was six years ago when he was in his absolute prime. As if he should be.

The PGA Championship is scheduled to take place in two weeks at Southern Hills in Tulsa, Okla. The best thing that could happen to the Red Sox would be for Mickelson to snap out of his funk and win another major.

(EDIT: I missed completely how dumb this last sentence was -- the phrasing, I mean. So I will here insert Junior's comment from the comments section below. Take it away, Junior.)

Best thing? Best? You know, actually, if you think about it, of all of the infinite things in the world that could happen between now and the end of the season, Phil Mickelson winning a major is somewhere right around 50th percentile. Because it has no impact on the Sox whatsoever. It goes something like this:

Bestest
-Sox win 60 games in a row, Yankees franchise disbands
-Ortiz gets healthy, Schilling comes back strong
-A-Rod starts looking human
-Barack Obama is revealed to have killed Pat Tillman
-Ugly Betty wins five Emmys
-Phil Mickelson wins a major
-A mother elephant sacrifices its life to safe its baby
-I eat a duck confit sandwich with fig jam
-Youkilis gets super into scuba diving and loses his love for baseball
-Manny loses his hand in a meat cutter
-Sox lose 60 games in a row, Yankees are awarded a Peabody and a Humanitas
Worstest

(END EDIT. Back to Ventre's column.)

That would illustrate to them that negative habits can be broken.

One more time -- "negative habits" like winning the Masters twice in three years and being one of the best golfers of his era and making millions and millions of dollars by being good at golf? Those negative habits?

I tell you what would be a good omen for the Red Sox. If Nathan Deakes could regain the form that led him to Gold at the 2002 Manchester Games. Deakes and the Sox are like totally parallel in terms of what they do athletically.

Labels: michael ventre, omens, red sox

Steve Phillips, calling the Red Sox-Mariners game today:

If you're an everyday player in the major leagues, you have to do something special. You either have to be a power hitter, you have to run and steal bases, and if you don't do either of those, you better be a .320 hitter or a guy that hits over .300 and make solid plays defensively. And that's really what Dustin Pedroia is going to have to do to lock himself into that role every day here in Boston.

Let's break it down.

If you're an everyday player in the major leagues

like Jack Wilson or Geoff Jenkins

you have to do something special

like Jay Gibbons and Ronnie Belliard do.

You either have to be a power hitter, you have to run and steal bases,

These things are of absolutely equal value.

and if you don't do either of those, you better be a .320 hitter

14 people in the major leagues did this last year.

or a guy that hits over .300 and make solid plays defensively.

37 people in all of baseball hit .300 in 2006. There are approximately 240 "everyday" position players. (Not counting DHs, platoons, etc.)

And that's really what Dustin Pedroia is going to have to do to lock himself into that role every day here in Boston.

Dustin Pedroia is the everyday starting second baseman for the Boston Red Sox. At this point, he's going to have to play himself out of that role.

Other than that, perfectly legitimate paragraph, there, Steve.

Labels: dustin pedroia, red sox, steve phillips

Of course, this makes sense because it happened on sports radio, a place where no one is supposed to make sense -- you're just supposed to shout at increasing volumes and play funny car horn sound effects. Specifically, it was on WEEI, and even more specifically, it was from the mouth of Gerry Callahan, who, like 97% of the world, hates Mr. J.D. Drew because he's not a "gamer." He doesn't "game," he doesn't have any "fire," and he certainly doesn't bring any "lunch pails" to "work" at his "blue-collar" "job" of being a "baseball" player.

Seriously. In a game where a million people did a million shitty things for the Red Sox, Callahan sticks it to Drew for taking a walk in the first inning. It's right here, at about the 2:20 mark.

One point in this game I took note of J.D. Drew -- and I know everyone's going to jump on me and say all I do is knock the guy, which is probably true, but -- he comes up in the first inning, Ortiz on second, two outs, you need a hit from him. You need to drive the ball. You can't afford a walk. The bottom of the order is weak. Mike Lowell's coming up next. They're going to walk him all game, all day, if he doesn't kind of take a more aggressive approach at the plate.

That's right, Nancy Drew. Why don't you swing, you girl named Nancy? Afraid of swinging at balls outside of the strike zone? Don't want to swing at bad pitches because that's a bad idea when you're playing baseball? Afraid to be a man and strike out instead of walk like some kind of sissy girl?

You're such a girl.

At this point Callahan asks Jerry Remy if he agrees. Rem-Dawg?

Uh, uh, yes and no. First of all, that's been his reputation his whole career. You know, I mean, that's one of the things that's made him appealing to the Red Sox is the fact that he'll take a walk. You know, he has that high on-base percentage, but I agree -- you know, guys in that situation have to expand the strike zone a little bit. And I don't mean by swinging at bad pitches, but you know, if you get a bad pitch on 3-1, you gotta wiggle at it instead of taking it and letting the count go to 3-2. You know, Frank Thomas was also criticized for doing the same thing when he was with Chicago, you know, trying to take the walk instead of trying to drive in the run. Um, I think it's too early, I still think as the season develops and depending on how the guys behind him hit, you know, I think he'll make the adjustment. Watching him in spring training, this guy is loaded with talent, he really is. I really feel he's going to have a pretty good year with the Red Sox.

Much more reasonable. Yes, walks lead to a high on-base percentage, which is good, and yes, it is still early. It's the first inning of the first game of the season. Thank you for your sanity, Rem-Dawg. Frank Thomas, by the way, is one of the most remarkable hitters of recent times, and the fact that he got criticized for the same exact thing puts Drew in excellent company.

Imagine what will happen to Callahan's brain when Drew actually does something bad. My prediction: it will sublimate directly from a solid to a gas and flow out his ears into the WEEI studios and everyone will be happy unless they accidentally breathe in the Callahan brain-gas.

Labels: gerry callahan, j.d. drew, red sox, rem-dawg, weei

From annoyingly intentionally controversial Dan Shaughnessy, writing about the Red Sox' Opening Day loss:

Worse than Ellen DeGeneres's first night hosting the Oscars. Worse than Arsenio Hall's first shot at late-night television. Worse than Patriots coach Clive Rush's first press conference, when he was nearly electrocuted.

I get it. The Red Sox were bad and Dan Shaughnessy has watched TV.

Now, I would just like to add the sentence "It's one game" after the following paragraphs.

Blogmaster Schilling threw like a man suffering from carpal tunnel syndrome, yielding five runs on eight hits and two walks in just four innings. 38pitches? That's almost how many Schill needed to get out of the first inning, when he threw 33 and walked home a run. It was his shortest outing since July 2001 and hardly a good start to his 2007 campaign for a new contract.

It's one game.

(When Curt Schilling pitches poorly, it's computer-related.)

Meanwhile, Bill James-mandated shortstop Julio Lugo started his Red Sox reign in Renteria-esque fashion, fanning in his first three at-bats, Japanese lefty Hideki Okajima yielded a home run on his first big league pitch, two Sox runners were cut down at second base, and spring strugglers Jason Varitek and Coco Crisp had hitless starts. Sox pitchers yielded 12 hits and two walks in eight innings.

It's one game.

(When Julio Lugo does something bad, it's because a computer liked him.)

Facing the widely mocked Gil Meche ($55 million over five years?), the Red Sox lineup was hardly the relentless run-producing machine that Theo and the Minions envisioned when they hovered over their computers during the wild-spending winter. The Red Sox struck out 10 times, and six of their eight hits were singles.

It's one game.

(Whenever the Red Sox lose, it's because of computers.)

In conclusion, it is my belief that Dan Shaughnessy's daughter once had sex with a computer and he is not comfortable with that.

Labels: curt schilling, dan shaughnessy, red sox