<$BlogRSDUrl$>

Monday, October 31, 2005

Blindsided!!!

What the F?? I don't know Theo Epstein, you don't know Theo Epstein, and maybe he's decided that there are better things to do with your life than run the Red Sox. It's arguable, no doubt. Gammons suggested Theo thinks he should maybe be doing social work, which is one of those ideas that no responsible person should try to talk him out of. That said, beyond this grain of conjecture, it's hard to imagine what has happened.

It's also hard to imagine what comes next. DePodesta is out in LA, might be a quick replacement, but he's already taken some hits to his rep in LA, for what it's worth. There are plenty of other experienced people around, and some of them might even be willing to work with Lucchino. Maybe Lucchino will take over as the acting GM (probably the worst case scenario). Maybe Theo does a Billy Beane after sleeping on his decision. The fact that this is even possible makes me wonder about larger issues that the team has had, all this time.

Ugh. One thing I know is, this does not bode well for the offseason. Chaos has never served the Sox very well.

Sunday, October 30, 2005

Fun While It Lasted

Hope you enjoyed the ride of the last few years. With the Sox snoozing, Manny packing his bags, etc., we hoped to have the Patriots to fall back on. Fat freakin chance.

Last night was one of the ugliest wins by a championship defending franchise I've ever seen. Note that I didn't say "defending champion," since the team that won the Super Bowl can largely be found in a physical therapy treatment center someplace. The injury list is really just stunning at this point, almost as mind-numbing as the ridiculous schedule the NFL cooked up for them. But the news isn't all bad: besides Light and Harrison, who do we truly need that we definitely won't get back? By December, the number of gaping holes could be significantly narrowed, on both sides of the ball.

Dillon is such a hard-ass. The fact that Patrick Pass was the featured back until he got shot, I mean hurt, speaks pretty loudly about the condition they felt Dillon was in. At least, the Pats felt the need to protect him, and even when he got in they didn't seem to want to lean too heavily on him. But once they did, he not only produced, but that production essentially turned the game around. Well, that and Colvin sitting on the ball after causing Holcomb to fumble.

BTW, if Brady threw a bad ball all game, I don't remember it. He was pressured a fair amount, but when protected he was lasering it to his receivers. So at least one injury on the list -- Brady's mythical shoulder ailment -- seems less than serious.

If this team can stabilize itself in the next month, everyone should know better than to discount them. It's just hard to imagine the injury list dwindling to real-world levels.

Wednesday, October 26, 2005

Five Reasons Nobody is Watching

There are a few basic parallels between this year's WS and Our Glorious Victory a year ago, the biggest one being that the team in charge is about to win its first championship since the Wilson Administration. There is also the AL dominance, the presence of what looked like an NL Central juggernaut, and a big market town which should guarantee big ratings.

But, last year's series was among the most watched, and this year's is among the least. I can think of five reasons why, in reverse order.

5. It's hard to take seriously any team whose uniforms once resembled orange rainbow pajamas. It's even harder to take seriously any franchise that once wore shorts in a game. The White Sox, especially, have always marketed themselves as a gimmick more than a baseball team. Perhaps this is better than just giving up and merging with the Cubs, but it's hard for me to get excited if people from Chicago aren't. Also, if you ever heard Hawk Harrelson announce a White Sox game, cheering like a schoolgirl... How can we take them seriously??

[Aside: a top 5 highlight from this season was in Chicago. The Dish was carrying the local broadcast, and Manny hit a foul popup with two out and two on that Joe Crede flubbed. The Hawk was in the process of explaining that you can't give guys like Manny second chances when someone (Damaso Marte?) grooved a fastball that he jolted into the night. Hawk's call: "Oh no...".]

4. The storylines aren't very compelling. Yes, neither team has ever amounted to anything, but you can't really blame the Baseball Gods or other supernatural force; you can just blame the teams themselves for, well, sucking. I mean, am I supposed to feel bad that Craig Biggio hasn't ever won anything in his 17 years? Lots of great players retired without rings, and unlike Biggio some of them got clutch hits in the World Series. Why should I rally to his cause if he won't?

3. There simply isn't a big following for either team. Texans can't stick with baseball once high school football practices start in late July; fortunately for them, until this year they didn't have to make any hard choices. Anyway, for reasons that go beyond the purposes of this column, Texas is simply a horrible place, and Houston has a strong claim to the title of America's Worst Large City. As for Chicago... great town, but even though it's larger than Boston, the White Sox are essentially a small market team. It's misleading to say that they split the baseball fanhood with the Cubs; it would be more accurate to say they get the Cubs' leftovers.

2. The action hasn't produced any compelling storylines. Even though they've been close games, including a record-long extra inning tussle, no single player is emerging as a person of interest, not even Brad Lidge as the new BK Kim. Winning hits have come from Crede, Blum, and Podsednik... who combined have less charisma than David Ortiz' shinguard. Despite the fact that pitching is the main story, there are no big pitching heroes -- given the Astros' meltdowns and the White Sox' plethora of great arms. There is no underdog to root for, no Goliath to slay, no Jack Morris endurance efforts to celebrate. Nothing.

1. The hitting is TERRIBLE! People are pointing to all the chances the Astros had to score the winning run last night and saying how exciting it was. Except that in each case they failed, and not only that but as, say, Adam Everett or Willy Taveras or whoever was coming up to bat, it was obvious that they were going to fail. And even if it wasn't beforehand, once they swung through a few fat curves or middle-in fastballs, it should have been. In other words, nobody is really achieving all that much; the White Sox are just failing less. Last year in the ALCS or WS, it seemed like every bad pitch was a homer, there was no margin for error and people made a steady string of good-to-great plays. The pitching was beautiful (when it wasn't awful). The games were tense and should have been. Nothing close to that this time around.

So let FOX run all sorts of reminders tonight that, in fact, one team in history has successfully overcome a 3-0 deficit. Let the White Sox win their championship so we can start talking about replicating 1916. Let a few SUVs get torched in Chicago. And fire up the free agency carousel.

Tuesday, October 25, 2005

The New Math

As we know all too well, the Red Sox ended 86 years of frustration with a world series title last year, their first since... well, you know. Now comes the White Sox, seemingly lasered in on their first title since 1917. This is a pretty incredible coincidence... maybe too incredible. The long-suffering 1918 winners break through in '04, followed by the long-suffering 1917 winners in '05. Question: are the Baseball Gods simply evening up old scores by giving the long sufferers their due, in which case the Cubs would be next? Or! Is time marching more methodically in reverse order, one year at a time, and repeating history?

If the latter, it's time to get a bet down on the franchise who won in 1916. And the 1916 World Series was won by the Boston Red Sox.

As was the 1915 World Series. And in 1914 the Boston Braves won. Three titles in four years... has a nice ring to it, doesn't it?

Monday, October 24, 2005

WS '06: Small Minds

The White Sox look pretty invincible right now, and there is every reason to crown them the Patriots of the next half-decade. Solid all around, with an affordable formula... there is no reason they won't be the team to beat for a while.

But contrary to certain media reports, it will have nothing to do with -- and even be in spite of -- the manager. Ozzie Guillen is a decent chap, but his insistence on "small ball" is my pet peeve of the month. Small ball is completely idiotic for any team that hasn't completely run out of alternatives. Least of all this team.

Case in point: In game 1, Dye and Konerko led off the fifth inning with a walk and a hit, respectively. Given that the Sox were nursing a one-run lead, this looked like their chance for a big inning that would salt away the game. But Guillen's addiction to "small ball" gets the better of all logic, and he has Carl Everett, his #5 hitter, bunt. It "works," in that the runners move over a base, which virtually forces Garner to walk the #6 hitter, Aaron Rowand, and pitch to cement-head... I mean footed A.J. Pierzinski to set up the double play. The pitcher, Rodriguez, is a lefty sinkerballer, and the predictable double play ends the threat. So thanks to Guillen's creativity, he takes a two-on, no-out situation, takes the bat out of the hands of his #5 and 6 hitters, gives away an out, and relies (futilely) on his #7 hitter to break open the game. End result: bubkis.

Now, it's been a while since I said anything nice about Carl Everett, but he did have 23 homers and 89 RBIs this year. And Rowand is about the same hitter (13 HRs, 69 RBIs) -- nothing special, but fully capable of a game-busting extra-base hit. Pierzinski is about the same type of hitter too -- moderate power, low on-base... but resembling a lumbering dinosaur up the basepaths. Why is it better to have him batting with three on and one out than having Everett batting with two on and no outs? Bill James and co. have done extensive research to show that giving away outs is the greatest sin in baseball: over time, it just doesn't even out. The only time to do it is when the guy you're bunting over is the winning run and you don't care about anything after that.

Worse still, although a case can be made for teams who have to scratch and claw for runs... the White Sox were fourth in the league in homers, suggesting that they're about as well positioned to wait around for the big inning as any team. A quick check of the AL runs and homers stats shows that the Other Sox were fourth in HRs, but only 9th in the AL in runs. The Rangers, Yanks and Indians were 1-2-3 in homers, and 2-3-4 in runs, while the three worst HR teams (KC, Minn and Seattle) were also the worst three teams for runs. In other words, there should be a strong correlation between homers and runs scored, but in the case of the bunt-happy White Sox, the correlation breaks down somewhat as they get remarkably little value for all those homers. Interestingly, the top-scoring team was ours truly, despite the fact that Boston only ranked fifth in homers. Why is that interesting? Because nobody bunts less than the Red Sox!

Anyway, from a cursory look, there seems to be evidence that the other Sox are screwing themselves with small ball in general, not just in the 5th inning of Game 1 (or in the Angels series as well). I will permit one other explanation: that their offense actually sucks, but this fact is covered over with homers attributable to the stadium, whatever it's called these days, being the easiest place to homer in the Majors. Take your pick.

Even if cheap homers are the undignified engine, they still count, and still argue ferocioiusly against the small-ball mentality that grips this and a few other teams. And do you know why they persist? Because Everyone Loves Smallball (tm)!! It's baseball purity... fashion... that keeps this bad strategy alive. The romanticizing of baseball that gripped the sport briefly in the 80s has left behind some remnant notions, such as an emphasis on fundamentals uber alles. Fundamentals are an essential starting point, but even the White Rat, whose 80s Cardinal teams are accused of being the perfect expression of small ball, said in his autobiography that he only played this way because he couldn't bat Jack Clark nine times a game.

In other words, if all else fails, you better at least be able to move runners over and hope for a wild pitch. But the White Sox don't exactly fail in all else. Except in their manager's inability to divorce himself from stupid baseball fashion.

Thursday, October 20, 2005

Sweet Memories

If you've been reading the Globe, or maybe if you've just had a funny feeling in your system, you're probably aware that this week is the one year anniversary of the greatest baseball moments we ever witnessed. In fact, if you've been somewhere other than trapped under something heavy, you're probably aware that tonight, October 20, is the anniversary of the greatest moment in Red Sox History.

Last year seems a long time ago, after the relatively deflating experience of the last few baseball months. This year's team never caught the magic that was evident at the latter stages of 2004 and on into the playoffs. Indeed, I actually spent time in the last few weeks wondering whether the Sox got the short end of the Shortstop Roulette from last offseason, even though Orlando Cabrera's year was thoroughly mediocre. No dramatic moves, no great team gimmicks... it was just never the same.


But that's barely a criticism, given the extraordinary events of 2004. The team charmed the nation with their fun, funny ways. The fans swayed joyously to Neil Diamond. And the events on the field made your jaw drop. The Fight in July. The Trade. The streak in August and September. The near miss on the division title that left the Yankees sweating. 98 wins. The authoritative sweep of the Angels. The bloody sock. David Ortiz...

Anyway, there is no debate that the crowning moment last year was the final win in New York. No Red Sox fan of any stripe would argue that the World Series was the best part. The 0-3 comeback, in Yankee Stadium, for the ALCS that propelled us to the first WS in 86 years, it doesn't get better. In fact, the only matter to debate was, was the seventh game one year ago tonight the greatest possible moment in Red Sox history? Is it possible for a greater moment?

Clearly the presence of the Yankees is indispensible. Sorry it can't be in the World Series, but the Yankees in the ALCS is still as big as it gets. Also, it's hard to imagine anything sweeter than becoming the first team in history to come back from 0-3.

But there are some variables worth considering: would it have been better if they won game 7 on a 9th inning comeback, instead of a blowout? Debatable, for sure. I suppose the drama would have amped up the emotions. But the blowout was a three-hour party, a thorough exorcism of the awful past. The latter was more fitting because history was so ugly, it demanded a strong statement. But for that, a 9th inning comeback would've been sweeter.

One more variable: would you rather have closed it out in Boston or New York? This is a much tougher question for me. The sound of Fenway Park at the final out would still be reverberating around the galaxy. That would have been the most euphoric moment possible. But was the lessened euphoria of winning in New York more than compensated by the raw carnage inflicted on the New York fans? What's sweeter, the noise in Fenway or the silence in the Stadium? I'm a pretty small man, so I might go with the latter. I think we actually did need to level the Yanks in order to ascend to the heights. But this is a coin flip to me.

Anyway, the 2004 DVD is on, and it's time to take it all in. Again.

Wednesday, October 12, 2005

News and Notes

The lead story this past week isn't what you think...

* When Tom Brady lashed out at the media and Marty Schottenheimer last week, I didn't really get it, it seemed a bit over the top. Bad games happen, as do injuries. But in retrospect it all makes sense: Brady didn't like the idea of pity from the conquering coach, possibly sensing that pity begets self-pity, which begets an early off-season. So he not only reacted, he blew up, and attacked the idea of pity ferociously. The result? A spectacular win in Atlanta. Make no mistake, this was a Larry Bird moment, Brady is rapidly approaching that rarified level, and if New Englanders outside the team's core of support don't get that, they are missing something special.

* It's doubly too bad if the reason those people don't notice Brady is that they are distracted by the Red Sox. OK, that's a tad harsh, but this season's conclusion was about as anticlimactic as it could have been. The problem with winning the way they did -- as opposed to the workmanlike Super Bowls the Pats have brought home the last two years -- is that the reaction is too strong, the party never ends, and as professional as the team was, they just got worn out. Sox fans are like National Park visitors: they're loving the team to death. I've spilled enough 0s and 1s on the real reason this team crashed. And analyzing where they're headed will take the next several months. Enough for now.

* Still, one can't help but note that the Ultimate Struggle -- Sox versus Yanks -- was essentially a draw. They played two more games but wound up with just as shameful an exit. Worse, the Yankees' failures can be directly attributed to virtually every big name on the team, and only the surprising performances of guys like Small and Chacon who may never look so good again saved them from a deeper rut. At least some of the Sox' biggest problems should be solved.

* Like Schilling. Let's face it, the lesson of the playoffs round 1 is that people need guys who come up big in the postseason. I always thought of Randy Johnson that way, but I'm a bit less sure. Schilling, meanwhile, is clearly one of those rare guys, and he reminded us of this fact in his last start, an easy win over the Yankees to clinch the wild card. Such was the team's fate this year that his effort wasn't really needed in the end, and in doing so he moved to the back of the rotation and never got the ball again. I have no way of knowing this, but I have a gut feeling that his ankle is one of those things that really needs a full year to heal, and that a healthy ankle next spring is going to make a HUUUUGE difference at the top of the rotation.

Next: catching up on the LCS's...

Monday, October 03, 2005

What Works?

ESPN has a column examining the last 20 World Series participants, effectively culling the winners from the Wild Card era, and looking at where they stood in pitching and runs scored. Of the 20 WS participants, 15 were ranked in the top three in their respective league in ERA. 75%. Four were ranked #1 overall. So you can win without great pitching, but it's an uphill climb. By (slight) contrast, nine of the 20 were in the top three in hitting; four were #1 overall. Slightly less than half of the participants could mash. 20 percent of the #1 mashers made the Show; same goes for the #1 pitchers.

In other words, the conventional wisdom that great pitching is key is not altogether untrue, but not exactly a minimum qualification. And great hitting is hardly irrelevant, if also not a sure winning hand.

As for Our Sox, being the #1 scoring team starts them out with a 20% chance of making the Series. [Since one of four AL teams makes it, their odds of slugging their way in are slightly less than their odds if they flipped coins.] Not great. Worse is the fact that they haven't been hitting down the stretch like the best offense in baseball; that distinction would go to the Yankees. Damon's injuries and the silence at the bottom of the order have been troublesome. It remains to be seen if their prominence can be restored by a day's rest or a dose of pixie dust, rather than offseason surgery.

By contrast, the Sox' pitching is ranked pretty low, and if they pitch true to form (with about one out of four starts being terrible, combined with some shaky relief), they aren't long for October. But!... if you look at the individuals, there is nothing that says they can't pitch more like a top team. Three of their four starters have a history of postseason success (yes, I mean Wakefield too), and Clement's good days are very good indeed. Several of the relievers were part of last year's run (Arroyo, Timlin, Myers) and fit the same mold: all potentially solid -- with no guarantees anywhere.

What does it add up to? A sense that they are in the game. They will need to seriously peak in the next three weeks to win it all, or get extremely lucky in the form of opponent chokes. But you can't rule anything out, not at all. Think of it this way: do any of these pitchers scare you more than Derek Lowe last year? And look what happened there...
We Love A-Rod!

Would David Ortiz ever, EVER, waste an ounce of breath whining about the fact that the Rangers pulled their stars and lost to the Angels, who then got home field advantage in round 1? A-Rod can't help but point out what a non-"Yankee" he is, using that term in the most complementary way, as in 1996-1999 Yankees. As in, guys who just play the game. A-Rod plays well enough to warrant MVP consideration (though until he goes on a tear in October -- and I'm not just talking about piling on homers in a blowout -- he hasn't proven anything). But he's a stone cold idiot. He's not a winner. And he is about as awful a team spokesman as you could have. Fortunately for them, Brian Cashman was there to quickly chime in and say that if the Yankees had won one more game (like, yesterday), they would have earned the home field.
Weblog Commenting by HaloScan.com

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?