Theo Epstein Revises History

The Sox are in Chicago to face the Cubs. Which means it's time to talk about former Red Sox GM Theo Epstein.

Just about every media outlet in New England had a piece or an interview with Theo this week. And he said some interesting things about his time with the Sox. He mentioned pressure to spend money and acquire players, and constant pressure to keep the team successful.

I can appreciate that. And I can appreciate Theo not wanting to work under Larry "Il Duce" Lucchino and Lord John Henry. But I don't know if I appreciated Epstein's tone or the way he explained his tenure in Boston. I got the sense that he was trying to say that mistakes he made weren't his fault. That he knew what he was doing was unwise, but that he was giving in to organizational pressure.

Theo's moves won the Sox two World Series. So let's just state that right off the bat. He made the Nomar trade, he signed Ortiz, he traded for Beckett, all these moves (and more) helped the Sox win it all in 2004 and 2007.

He wasn't perfect. Nobody is. But some of the deals he made were silly. Especially when he spent lots of money. JD Drew. An injury prone John Lackey. Spending $51 million just to talk to Daisuke. Re-signing Beckett. Bobby Jenks. Giving Carl Crawford $142 million.

The sizes of the contracts were what made the signings odd. Carl Crawford was a very good player with the Rays, but the size of the deal was beyond even his expectations. Nobody was bidding against the Sox when they signed him. They just threw a bunch of money at him.

So Epstein is saying that there was a desire to try to improve and to win every year, and that overwhelmed his patience. So he compromised his philosophy and would "settle for a different move that maybe doesn't check all the boxes."

If that's the case, it's still his responsibility. And what is he afraid of? He had two rings. He once quit the organization. And yet he felt pressured to compromise his philosophy? He didn't feel confident in the patience that won the World Series twice?

That doesn't make sense.

What I think actually happened was that he tried to be too clever with his big acquisitions. He was a disciple of Billy Beane. He used his brain to make some smart moves. He found undervalued talent like David Ortiz, Bill Mueller, Mark Bellhorn, and so on. He turned the farm system around and it's been producing since. He had the balls to trade Nomar. He was very good at being a non-traditional GM.

But the traditional, big money stuff is different. It's simple. It doesn't require extraordinary intelligence. For example, the Yankees wanted CC Sabathia. He's a great pitcher, so they gave him lots of money. It's not brain surgery.

But he tried to be clever and different in this area too.

He always saw Julio Lugo as a guy capable of becoming a superstar. So even though he had never had his breakout season, Theo paid him close to $9 million. Because Theo thought if he had that breakout year, then $9 million would be a bargain. He never broke out.

People shied away from JD Drew because of injury and attitude problems. But Theo saw the injury history and his logic told him that Drew would be one of the best in the game if he weren't so unlucky with injuries. So he gave an injury prone player a 5 year deal worth $70M. Drew missed an average of 40 games per season.

Everyone was excited about Daisuke, but none more than Theo and the Sox. The Sox bid $11 million more than any team just to talk to Matsuzaka. Theo and the Sox thought they were smart enough to handle all the adjustments to pitching in the Majors, to a 5 man rotation, to pitch counts. Daisuke was supposed to reinvent pitching, and the Sox were going to help him do that. The results have been mixed with him.

Theo placed so much importance on value, but then he'd overpay for the guys he wanted to get. He's also hesitate to re-sign aging players with injury concerns. Then they sign Lackey and pay him over $16 million. They worry about age and health, then sign a 31 year old pitcher with a bad elbow.

Epstein did a lot for the Sox. For every Edgar Renteria there was a Keith Foulke and a Curt Schilling. For every JD Drew there's a Papelbon, a Lester, a Buchholz, et cetera.

BUT, he's full of it when he says he strayed from his own philosophies. That's garbage. He made mistakes. He thought he knew what he was doing, he thought he knew better than prevailing wisdom said. And for the smaller signings, he was right. On draft day, he was right. But for the big time free agents, he was wrong.

Theo has a sharp baseball mind. It takes a sharp baseball mind to see a part-time first baseman on the Twins with some pop and a patient approach and see potential for improvement. It takes a sharp baseball mind to have noticed David Ortiz before he became Big Papi.

It doesn't take a sharp baseball mind to see that Felix Hernandez is a good pitcher. And that Miguel Cabrera is a good hitter. The biggest acquisitions require the smallest amount of thought and analysis.

But Theo never turned his brain off. He's claiming now that he ignored it, but the problem was that whole he was here, he was using it too much.

This Isn't a No-Hitter Epidemic

Why are there so many no-hitters these days? Lack of steroids? Talent dilution? Umpires with big strike zones? There are many theories to explain why there seems to be a no-hitter thrown every week, and why they're being pitched by people we've barely heard of.

Matt Cain's perfect game last night was the 5th no-hitter of the season. And we're not even at the All-Star break. Some are even saying that with so many of these accomplishments (14 in the last 3 years), no-hitters are becoming devalued. They're not as special anymore. Not as impressive.

No-hitters are statistical anomalies. They're freak occurrences. Only 277 of them have been thrown in MLB history. Even with the seeming abundance of them recently, 14 no-hitters in 2.4 seasons isn't as if they're happening every day. Those 14 no-hitters took about 5,800 games to happen. Or once every 414 games. That's 0.24% of games played. 99.76% of games since 2010 have not been no-hitters.

Think of how weird no-hitters are. There's always a great defensive play that defies belief. Sometimes there's a generous umpire. Johan Santana's, for instance, was a foul/fair call away from being just another game. So much has to happen. Every bounce has to go right.

They're so weird, and still so rare, that it's natural for their occurrences to be sporadic and irregular. Sometimes there will be long stretches between them. Between May of 2004 and September of 2006, 6,364 games were played between no-hitters.

I don't think steroids was the culprit for that drought. There were 3 no-hitters in 1999. Mark McGwire hit 65 homeruns in 1999. There were also 3 no-hitters in 2001. Barry Bonds hit 73 homers in 2001. There were no-hitters at the peak of the steroid era.

Furthermore, the lack of PEDs probably isn't the reason behind the recent increase in no-hitters. There have been times when no-hitters came in bunches.

In 1990, there were 7 no-hitters thrown. Two of them on the same day. In 1991, there were also 7 no-hitters thrown. Three of these 14 no-hitters were combined. One was a perfect game.

How many no-hitters were thrown in 1992? One. How many in 1989? Zero.

So the number of no-hitters went from 0 to 7 to 7 to 1.

If you're going to do analysis on a trend, look at the entire history of the trend. The article I linked to pointed out that 5.7% of all no-hitters have occurred in the last 2.5% of seasons played. This analysis ignores the fact that until 1960, there were only 16 MLB teams (so far fewer games played in a season). And it also makes it seem like this is a huge rash of no-hitters. An epidemic. An unprecedented epidemic.

But as I pointed out, 5.1% of no-hitters were thrown in 1990 and 1991. The number of no-hitters can rise and fall with significant variance from year to year. There doesn't have to be a significant cause. It's just random.

Now, if there are 10 no-hitters this season, then 8 more next year, and 8 more the year after that, I'll agree that this is a trend. Until then, it's not. It's just statistical randomness of a random and weird event.

And I'm still impressed by them.

Some Media Tries to Generate a Story About Belichick and the Giants

On Monday, the Giants put injured tight-end Jake Ballard on waivers after he failed a physical. On Tuesday, the Patriots picked him up. Ballard won't be able to play until 2013. He caught 38 passes for 604 yards and 4 TDs in 2011. And he cost the Patriots nothing.

Nothing but a few poor attempts by some in the Media to make mountains out of molehills.

Most of the national sports media didn't blink an eye at this story. Belichick was asked about potential "unwritten rules" he may have broken and said that there weren't any. Giants' coach Tom Coughlin was asked about the matter and seemed more angry at his own team for making the move, than at the Patriots for taking advantage of it.

But some members of the media didn't want to settle for the logic and common sense of all that. They wanted to generate a story.

An unnamed Associated Press writer wrote this piece on the transaction.

The piece carried the incendiary title: "Giants, Coughlin unhappy with Patriots grabbing TE." Had the AP writer spelled out TE, it would have been a marginally humorous headline.

Here are some of my favorite quotes from this piece:

"Tom Coughlin was in no mood to be noble toward the New England Patriots for plucking injured tight end Jake Ballard off the waiver wire."

"What was depicted as a 'calculated risk' by New England... was being viewed in some quarters as a vindictive move by Patriots coach Bill Belichick."

In other words, the writer of this story and his media buddies view it as vindictive. Nobody in the Giants has expressed such an opinion.

"Coughlin would not have had Ballard for 2012, but that didn't lessen his feelings on the situation. In the end, though, he had to admit that the Patriots did nothing outside the rules, except perhaps those of front-office etiquette."

So this AP stringer feels he is more of an authority of "front-office etiquette" than Bill Belichick or Tom Coughlin? Coughlin never came close to discussing "front-office etiquette." Only media people are talking about that.

I call what this writer is attempting to do a Smoke-Bomb Story. You know the expression "where there's smoke, there's fire." Well, this is an example of a media guy throwing a proverbial smoke-bomb, then claiming that because smoke exists, there must be a fire. But there is no fire.

It's a generated story. It's a sad attempt by a lame reporter to construct a narrative that isn't based on facts. Tom Coughlin is not upset with the Patriots, yet the headline implies that he is. The Patriots acquired a solid player, yet the story suggests they did so with an ulterior motive.

It's not an anti-Patriots thing, it's a desperate-for-a-story, starving, misguided reporter thing. There is no story here beyond the Giants making a miscalculation about interest in Ballard, and the Patriots acquiring a decent player for 2013.

It's pathetic.

Euro 2012 Update*

Germany continues to roll, Portugal got a win, and Russia was fined $150k for the violence of their fans at the tournament.

PORTUGAL 3, DENMARK 2

Whether they advance or not, the Danes are putting on one hell of a show. They beat the Netherlands, and were tied 2-2 with Portugal until the 87th minute. The Danish play the Germans next, and they're probably going to be the toughest test for Germany so far. But give credit to Portugal for getting a big goal and a big win when they really needed one.

GERMANY 2, NETHERLANDS 1

I picked the Dutch to win this tournament because of their talent up front. But their lack of talent and experience in the back is really showing. Mario Gomez took full advantage of the Netherlands' defensive weaknesses, scoring his 2nd and 3rd goals of the tournament. The Dutch left Bastian Schweinsteiger uncovered, and that's like allowing Rajon Rondo to pass to whoever he wants. Only Schweinsteiger's name is much more fun to say than Rondo's. The German defenders don't look very sharp, though, and that might be what prevents the team from winning the tournament.

UEFA fined the Russian soccer association $150,000 because Russian fans attacked stadium staff after Russia's win over the Czech Republic. Here's a clip of the incident in question:

In soccer, the team is punished for actions of the fans. Essentially, the actions of the fans involved in this incident have cost their soccer federation $150,000. UEFA also issued a suspended punishment for future violations. If Russian fans cause any more trouble in this tournament, the team will be deducted 6 points (they have 4 now), and will likely not advance to the next round.

Hopefully it will be an effective deterrent to prevent any further trouble.

Doubront It? You Got It!

Prince Felix returned to form last night, rebounding from one of his first stumbles of the season. He went 7 innings, struck out 9, only allowing 2 runs off 3 hits and a walk. It was one of his best starts all year.

The Sox finally managed to score some runs. As usual, it came as a bunch. They scored 4 off Nolasco, then took advantage of Randy Choate and the Marlins' bullpen in the 8th. They scored 6 in that inning. Up until last night, they'd scored 6 runs in the previous 27 innings.

Good pitching creates the possibility of winning. It makes winning easy. All the hitters have to do is hit. There's 9 of them, and they get 27 outs to play with, so they should be able to hit and score runs. Quality pitching is the biggest cause of winning.

And that's what Felix Doubront has given the Red Sox this season. He deserves his 7-3 record. He's been a rock. He's been reliable. He's only failed to go 5 innings twice. And he's gone 6+ eight times. You really can't ask for more from him.

The Sox continue to play well on the road. They're 17-13 away from Fenway. Maybe it has something to do with the wind.

Speaking of wind, they'll be in Chicago to face the 6th place Cubs. They're 20 games below .500. The Sox must take advantage of this struggling opponent.

Matsuzaka makes his second start of the season. He faces Ryan Dempster, who is 2-3 but has a 2.31 ERA. He hasn't allowed a run since May. This doesn't bode well for the Sox offense.

Photo Credit:
AP Photo

Red Sox Selling Pieces of Tarp

The subject line of the email reads "Own a piece of Red Sox history." Intrigued, I opened the email and what I saw made me laugh out loud. The Red Sox are selling tote bags that are made from pieces of the infield tarp used during the 2010 and 2011 seasons.

A piece of Red Sox history? Really?

So the giant sheet of canvas that was rained on for two seasons is now considered a piece of history? It's not even an old tarp. And it was used during two of the most forgettable Sox seasons this side of 2002.

The "Fenway Boat & Tote" costs $59.95. There was a limited edition of 2,012 available. And they're already sold out online. Anyone dumb enough to pay $60 for this deserves, well, a tote bag made out of used canvas.

I hate tote bags anyway. Any bag that can't be closed is a useless item.

But this is the latest example of the absurd lengths the Sox have gone to monetize the team and turn Fenway into a brand-name. This is getting silly, and a little bit embarrassing. The Sox are actually selling infield tarp as tote bags.

When the Sox sold Red Sox Nation Membership Cards, I got one. It gave me access to buying a pair of Monster Seats (when they were only a year old and very highly sought after), a free subscription to MLB radio on the internet (I lived in Ithaca, NY at the time and this allowed me to listen to Sox games), and discounts on merchandise. I felt silly being a "card-carrying" RSN member, but it paid for itself and then some.

Then they redid seats in Fenway, and are selling the old seats they removed. The price is steep (this pair on Amazon.com costs $1,600, marked down from $2,300), but I could see such a thing as an eccentric piece of furniture in a living room or on a porch. An actual part of Fenway Park in your own home. Sounds okay.

Then they sold bricks. The silliness was increasing. Then again, you could buy a brick to dedicate to your grandfather or one that your future grandchildren could look at 50 years from now. Not for me, but I understood the appeal to some.

Now this. A piece of tarp from 2010. "A piece of Red Sox history." Remember those historic rain delays? That torrential summer storm of August 24, 2010. Then in 2011, the tarp really became historic. Rainouts on April 10, May 17, and September 23. There was even that Tropical Storm that forced the Red Sox to move a game up from Sunday to Saturday. The tarp has seen it all, been there in the biggest weather delays the last two seasons.

This tarp was truly a big part of Red Sox history. And 2,012 people paid $60 to own part of it, and stuff it full with that shirt they just bought which says "Liverpool" in the Red Sox font, that brand new Sox hat that's been artificially faded so it looks worn, a collection of Mike Barnacle books, a lock of Dan Shaughnessey's hair, and this completely blank 1918 throwback jersey which costs over $100:

There is no number on the back. It's a completely blank jersey.

I'm sure these tote bags will also carry books like this one, an essential part of the Pink Hat Collection:

So what can the Red Sox sell next? I'm thinking game-worn ground's crew polos. These are the guys that actually handle the historic tarp that covers the field. They tend to the grass, they keep the warning track clear, they moisten the infield to reduce dust. And now you can buy their used shirts that are soaked in the perspiration that keeps Fenway beautiful.

Or how about taking burnt out spark plugs from the ground's crew's lawnmowers and turning them into Christmas ornaments? They can even be used as candles in a Menorah. These are the spark plugs that run the engine that mows the grass that the tarp covers.

Maybe the Sox can take the troughs that were once in the bathrooms, slice them up, and turn them into wheel barrows. You can tend to your garden with the scrap metal that thousands of drunk Sox fans have left their mark on. It's a part of Red Sox history.

I can't complain too much about the Sox trying to make money. It's working. People bought these tote bags. They paid twice as much as they would have for a normal LL Bean tote bag.

However, it's still embarrassing that this is what the Franchise is focused on doing. It's a marketing firm, using Fenway Park as a brand-name (Roush-Fenway Racing, Fenway Sports Group, Fenway Sports Management).

They've turned Fenway Park from a Field of Dreams to a field of revenue streams.

If you brand it, they will buy.

Euro 2012 Violence

After years of playing nothing but soccer, some of these Europeans have no idea how to use their hands in a fight.

It was a randomized process that selected the groups for Euro 2012. And it was an arbitrary scheduling that determined the dates that games would be played on. And when this resulted in Poland and Russia being matched together in a group, and playing their game on Russia Day (equivalent to a Russian Independence Day), I'm sure many organizers of Euro 2012 collectively said "oh shit" in their native languages.

Russia and Poland have a long and complex history. Poland and the USSR fought a war against each other from 1919 to 1921. Over 100,000 people died. In 1939, the Soviet Union invaded Poland as part of an agreement with Nazi Germany. Germany and the USSR then divided and occupied Poland.

In 1944, Polish nationalists rose up against the German occupiers (who had conquered all of Poland in 1941) of Warsaw. They'd hoped this uprising would be assisted by Soviet troops, who were less than 10 miles from the city. The Russians stopped their advance and refused to aid the uprising, which was eventually crushed. An estimated 200,000 Polish civilians died in the failed uprising.

After World War II, Poland was politically dominated by the Soviet Union until 1989.

There's a very long and very recent history between these two countries. Even now, Poland is paranoid about Russia attempting to violate their sovereignty, and Russia is wary of Poland's close ties to NATO and the West.

Before Russia and Poland played to a 1-1 draw yesterday, 5,000 Russian fans marched through Warsaw and to the stadium as a celebration of their team and to celebrate Russia Day. They had permission from Polish authorities to do so. But considering the history between these two countries, maybe it was more than a little insensitive of the Russians to stage such a display of Russian pride on Polish soil. Then again, Russians have never been noted for their sensitivity.

Sporadic fighting broke out between Poles, Russians, and police during the march. Over 50 were arrested, and more than 10 people were hospitalized.

What's aggravating me is that it could have been avoided, and it's overshadowing what should be a great soccer tournament, with battles being fought by 22 men on a field with a ball, not a few dozen thugs in ski masks throwing chairs at each other.

The Polish authorities probably shouldn't have let the Russians march. Then again, maybe they figured that having all the Russian fans in one place would allow them to focus their Police in those areas.

The Russians shouldn't have staged the march at all. It was very antagonistic of them.

Some countries in Europe, Germany for instance, acknowledge the horrible things they've done in their history. Some countries, Russia for instance, don't spend much time discussing the unpleasant things they've done in their history. Russia were partners with the Nazis in conquering Poland in 1939. They didn't help the Poles in 1944 because they wanted to install their own communist government in Warsaw, and not allow the Polish to form their own government. And for 45 years Moscow ran Poland as subservient to the Soviet Union and Russian interests.

So I can't blame the Poles for being angry that a few thousand Russians decided to march through Warsaw. It doesn't excuse the violence, but I understand the rage.

Buchholz Buckles Down

The Sox offense continues to struggle but Buchholz didn't need much support to beat the Marlins. He struck out 9 in 7 innings, allowing just 5 hits, 1 run, and walked only 2. The run he allowed came from a solo homerun. My favorite stat from his performance is that he threw a first-pitch strike to 20 of the 26 batters he faced.

Buchholz has been an Ace lately. In his last 4 starts he's pitched 31 innings, and allowed only 5 earned runs (1.45 ERA). He's struck out 28 and only walked 7. He has a WHIP of 0.968 over those 4 starts.

The Sox truly needed a great start last night because the offense was once again almost completely absent. The first 5 hitters in the Sox lineup combined to go 1 for 18 with a single and a walk.

Kelly Shoppach was 2 for 4 with a pair of doubles. One of them knocked in a run. Mike Aviles had an RBI single that knocked in Shoppach. Both Sox runs were scored in the 7th. The Sox only had 6 hits, 5 of which came from the bottom of the order, and only 1 came with runners in scoring position.

The Sox avoided wasting yet another good outing by a starting pitcher. Nevertheless, scoring 2 runs a game is not part of a formula to win consistently. Pedroia and Youkilis continue to slump. The offense is being carried by guys like Kelley Shoppach. And how long can they bear the burden? How much production can you hope to squeeze out of these support guys while stars like Gonzalez struggle to do what they're paid to do?

The Sox have scored the second most runs in the Majors. But they come in bunches, not as a steady flow. There's stretches of pouring rain then extended periods of drought. It's a streaky lineup, sometimes scoring 8 runs with ease, sometimes struggling to score more than 2.

The rubber game with the Marlins (the Sox' interleague "rival" for the year) is tonight. Felix Doubront faces Ricky Nolasco. Both these pitchers might give up a couple of runs so it's important that the Sox take advantage of offensive opportunities.

Photo Credit:
AP Photo