Luis Suarez Should Be Banned from the World Cup, John Henry Should Make a Statement

Luis Suarez is one of the most dangerous strikers in world soccer, not just for his scoring, but for his biting. Late in Uruguay's match against Italy, Suarez bit Giorgio Chiellini. He received no punishment on the field but FIFA are investigating the incident.

It's the third time Suarez has bit an opposing player. A dental hat trick. He's bitten opponents in three countries on two continents. In the past he's sampled Dutch and Serbian flesh. This was his first taste of Italian.

The whole thing is just insane. It's one thing for players to push, shove, even headbutt or punch in the heat of the moment. In all sports, players lose tempers and cross such lines. But to revert to biting someone, and to do so repeatedly, is so psychologically bizarre. That's something you'd expect a troubled kindergartner to do, and then the teacher would have to call home to his parents.

"Hello, Mr. and Mrs. Suarez? I'm afraid I have bad news. Luis is biting again."

As the Hannibal Lector and vampire jokes flow, so does the disgust and embarrassment from the soccer world. Few are defending Suarez. One of the few is Uruguay head coach Oscar Tabarez. After the game he said:

"I do not see why he would not play anymore at the World Cup as you are suggesting. Suarez is the target of some British press. If we see he is going to be attacked, which has begun at this press conference, we're going to defend him. I'm not going to repeat a response three times. I didn't see (an) incident with Suarez. I'm not going to comment. This is a World Cup. It is not about morality."

Those remarks had been translated from Spanish to English. I'll translate from English to Coachingese:

"If Suarez gets suspended, we have no chance. I'd defend him even if he bit off my left nut."

Uruguay's captain, Diego Lugano is in utter denial:

"You need to show me what happened because I didn't see anything. Did you see it today or did you see what happened in other years? You couldn't have seen it today because nothing happened.”

It's up to FIFA to discipline Suarez, because his coach has no interest in doing so, and clearly Suarez has no concept of self-discipline. Suarez feels unfairly criticized by media and fans even though he's been suspended twice for biting other players, and once for using racially charged language against an opponent. In his mind he's a victim. Everyone is out to get him and he can't figure out why.

There's a Boston connection to this. Suarez plays for Liverpool FC, which is owned by John Henry and Fenway Sports Group (FSG). Suarez is the team's best player, by far. This is the equivalent of David Ortiz biting an opponent during the World Baseball Classic.

Will John Henry do or say anything about this incident? Liverpool/Red Sox Ownership stood behind Suarez in 2011 when he was suspended 8 games and fined 40,000 pounds for directing racial language against an opposing player. I don't expect Henry or FSG to defend Suarez now. The evidence against him is too blatant, and he's a repeat offender.

I would like to hear something from FSG. Anything. This is a big story across the world, and Suarez works for John Henry. You'd think Henry would want to comment. Will any media in Boston ask Henry about it? Will any reporter have the stones to ask Henry if Suarez's recent contract extension includes full dental coverage?

Suarez should be banned for the remainder of the World Cup, perhaps longer than that. And the team that pays him millions should issue some sort of statement about the incident. John Henry and Fenway Sports Group can't sit on the sidelines. They need to take a stand one way or another.

He bit a dude. How can you not come out and say "That's messed up?"

Free Event: Watch the Red Sox Game at Franklin Park this Sunday

The City of Boston, the Highland Street Foundation, and the Boston Red Sox will bring the Fenway Park game experience to Franklin Park on Sunday June 22nd. This is part of the "Out of the Park" series of events.

Each “Out of the Park” event will feature a live viewing of a Red Sox away game, broadcast by the New England Sports Network (NESN) on a massive big screen with cut-ins by a live game announcer. The events will also include many of the signature elements and amenities that can be found in and around Fenway Park and Yawkey Way for a home Red Sox game - including caricaturists, balloon artists, face painters, giveaways, free popcorn, ice cream by Hood and Kayem’s famous Fenway Franks. Red Sox mascot Wally the Green Monster, Fenway Park DJ T.J. Connelly, and the Hot Tamales Brass Band will also make special appearances.

The event will be held at the Playstead by Pierpont Road. The Sox will be playing the Oakland Athletics at 4:05 p.m.

David Ortiz vs. Official Scorers

Sometimes the media makes mountains out of molehills. They take a small story, ramp it up, and turn it into a big deal. It happens in sports, politics, celebrity news, the media does it everywhere. In sports, if the story lasts 48+ hours the media deems it a "distraction." They declare that the story, which the media created/enhanced in the first place, is "taking away" from something more important. This keeps the story alive and makes it an even bigger story. Normally, this vicious cycle irritates me.

David Ortiz is not a victim of this cycle. He's the instigator. He took the molehill and started to build it into a mountain.. Ortiz couldn't leave his disagreement with Bob Ellis (who charged Joe Mauer with an error instead of rewarding David Ortiz with a hit) on the field, where it belongs. Because in Ortiz's mind, it's just the latest example of him being a victim.

Post-game, Ortiz was asked about the disagreement. He could have kept things simple and said something like "I disagreed with the decision," and left it there. He could have diverted attention away from the incident by saying something like "I thought it was a hit, but we won the game, that's what's important."

But moving on from a perceived slight is not what David Ortiz does. Here's what he said:

"We tie the game. We win the game. It doesn't get any better. But I want my hit back anyway... It’s always so hard here, man. I tell you. People are supposed to have your back at home. It never happens. It's always like that. I've been here more than a decade and the scorekeepers here are always horrible. This is home, man... I always look like I am the bad guy but they always end up changing it. Don't just be checking on Papi. Check on the scorekeeper. See what he's doing wrong. It's something that, it’s getting out of control. What is he watching? He’s not watching the same ballgame that everybody is watching, I guess. I got to make it clear. It's not my first rodeo, man. You know how hard it is to get a hit, man?"

The assembled media then laughed at his "rodeo" joke. None of the media asked the question that should have been asked: "Why is this such a big deal? Why care so much about it?"

Ortiz has a history of publicly disagreeing with official scorers. Or as he might see it, official scorers have a history of robbing him of hits and he has a history of standing up for himself and getting justice, saving his batting average from those who scheme to lower it with the stroke of a pen.

Ortiz also has a history of being overly sensitive whenever criticized or questioned. Or as he might see it, many people are out to get him and he needs to fight these conspiring forced in order to survive in Major League Baseball.

I don't care so much about Ortiz disagreeing with the official scorer, it's how he does it. A few years ago when he poked his head into the manager's press conference as the team was collapsing to complain about losing an RBI, it was like a crewman on the Hindenburg complaining about his paycheck to the captain as the airship was crashing and burning.

On Thursday Ortiz voiced his disagreement during the game. Later when the media came asking questions, Ortiz wanted to use them as a voice of his victimhood. "It's getting out of control." "It's always so hard here." "People are supposed to have your back at home. It never happens." "The scorekeepers here are always horrible."

"I always look like I am the bad guy but they always end up changing it." Translation: I cry, then I get my way.

I'm not going to exaggerate and say this is a big deal, or a distraction, or a bad example for younger players. It's an annoyance. And what's so annoying about it is that it could be avoided if David Ortiz just kept himself from trying to use the media to portray himself as a victim.

An official scorer made a decision, maybe the wrong decision, maybe he's human and makes mistakes. It's not part of a larger effort to lower your batting average.

Ortiz's whining changes the conversation. Instead of discussing whether it's a hit or an error, the discussion becomes about Ortiz and his reaction. Ortiz is not the victim, he's the perpetrator, he's the creator of this story.

Redskins, Just Change Your Name Already

The US Patent Office has revoked the trademark on the Redskins' name, claiming that said name is disparaging. While I don't disagree with that assessment, it's a sneaky, roundabout way for the US Government to get involved and try to compel the Redskins to change their name. Which they cannot do directly.

While I think the Government should be less involved in the controversy over the Redskins' name, the NFL has left a vacuum to be filled. The NFL normally micromanages every aspect of the game that involves appearance and image. They punish players for not tucking their shirt in, for choreographed celebration, and for doing anything that might tarnish the league's image.

Yet they've passed the buck of responsibility on the Redskins issue. They won't ask/request/demand that the Redskins change their name. Nor will they stand behind the name and defend it from its critics and detractors. They've wiped their hands of the issue. Which is decidedly indecisive of them. It's very un-Goodell-like.

Daniel Snyder, just change the name. Teams change their names all the time. Teams change cities with even more ease.

The Texans were the Oilers, the Ravens were the Browns, the Chiefs were the Texans, the Colts played in Baltimore, the Cardinals in St. Louis, the Rams in LA. The Washington Redskins were once the Boston Braves (changed to Redskins when they moved to Fenway Park in 1933). It happens.

The Red Sox were once the Pilgrims, once the Americans. The Yankees were once the Highlanders. The baseball Braves were once the Beaneaters. The Giants were once the Haymakers. From 1953 to 1959 the Cincinnati Reds changed their name to Redlegs because they didn't want to be associated with Communism.

Straw Man Argument #1:
The name isn't that offensive, here are some polls to back me up.

Who cares what percentage of randomly polled people find it offensive? It's not about being offensive, it's about being an outdated term. Like "negro" or "colored" are outdated terms. If you had a Native American friend, would you introduce him by saying "That Redskin over there is Charlie, he lives next door?"

People probably aren't offended by "redskin" because nobody uses it. But if people did use it, it would be considered a derogatory term. You wouldn't use it in conversation with a Native American. You'd get written up at work if you used it.

If you wouldn't use the term to the face of the person the term is supposed to describe, it's probably not a good term.

Straw Man Argument #2:
Slippery slope! Changing the name might lead to ridiculous requests to change other team's names.

So changing the Redskins' isn't a ridiculous request, but you're worried about future ridiculous requests. Lame argument. Deal with the absurd requests when they come. The Cleveland Indians might need to change their name, and their cartoonishly racist logo. The Chiefs should be okay because the term "chief" isn't racist. The Braves might be in some trouble. But let's deal with those discussions as they come up.

Not giving in now because you don't want to give in later is irrational.

Straw Man Argument #3:
History and tradition

I don't think you want to go down the road of history when discussing Native American issues.

This is a foolish argument anyway. It's like going back to the 1920s and arguing that women shouldn't have the right to vote because they traditionally and historically haven't had it. It's like arguing that we should continue to use terms like "negro" and "colored" because they're traditional and historical.

The Redskins have a rich history as the Redskins. Changing the name won't erase that history. The Syracuse Orange used to be the Orangemen until 2004, yet SU fans still shove their history down everyone's throat.

So Redskins, you've had your name for 80 years. It was a good run. But it's a term from the 1930s. It's time to grow up and find a new name for yourselves. Nobody uses the term "Redskin" anymore. You shouldn't either. You've changed names before, changed cities, changed stadiums, changed uniforms, changed logos. Time to find a new name.

Bruins Correct to Let Shawn Thornton Go, Need Top Players to Be Leaders

When the Bruins take the ice in a few months, Shawn Thornton will not be with them. The Bruins have announced that the free agent winger will not be re-signed. To call Thornton a fan favorite would be the biggest understatement of the year. Bruins fans loved him for his strong fists on the ice, his veteran leadership on the bench, and his charitable heart away from the arena.

My Shawn Thornton t-shirt is one of my favorites in my closet and I wear it happily all year long, even in the harsh heat of summer, despite the fact that it's black. And while I'll continue to wear that shirt until it disintegrates into tattered rags, the Bruins deciding to not give Thornton one of their sweaters next season is the smart decision to make.

He's 36, and will turn 37 in July. He averaged 8:48 of ice time last year. He scored 5 goals, had 3 assists, and was +4. In the playoffs he had an assist and was -2. He's not a productive player. There's more to his game than points and time on ice. Much more. But the lack of offensive production is part of the Shawn Thornton package. The Bruins need more forwards who can score, who can create chances. Thornton doesn't do that.

He's an enforcer. He's a leader. He's played in 101 playoff games, has won the Stanley Cup twice. Players look up to him. Opponents fear him. However, the Bruins need to find leadership from their top 2 lines, not the 4th line.

This team has relied too much on Shawn Thornton's enforcing, too much on him to be the motivating voice on the bench. Guys like Milan Lucic, David Krejci, and Brad Marchand (if he's still on the team) need to step up and become leaders. They've been around the League long enough. They've won, they've lost. For too long they've leaned on Thornton as a leader.

Why does this team need an "energy line" to get the top lines motivated? That motivation needs to come from within those players. And if they can't find it, they don't belong here.

Look at teams like LA and Chicago. Do they depend on guys like Shawn Thornton to lead them? Guys who play 9 minutes a game, and who are sometimes healthy scratched in playoff games? Do they get their leadership from guys who play less than 10 minutes, or do they get it from guys who play 18+ minutes?

I love Thornton. I love what he did here, what he did for the Bruins, how much he embraced the City of Boston. I'll miss him. The fact is, however, the Bruins need production and Thornton isn't a productive player. Also, the best players on the Bruins need to grow up and become leaders, and stop relying on someone else to lead them. What Thornton gave the Bruins is something the top forwards need to generate on their own.

Photo Credit:
Bruce Bennett/Getty Images

It Doesn't Matter if Tom Brady Is a "Top-5 QB" or Not

An ESPN article has outraged the sports fans of Boston and New England. Sam Monson wrote a piece that argued that Tom Brady was no longer a "top-5 QB." I contend that as far as the Patriots are concerned, it doesn't matter if Brady is or isn't.

I'm not going to waste much time dwelling on Monson's assertions. If forced at gunpoint to give my top 5 NFL QBs, I'd include Brady. You'd have to force me at gunpoint because I think such discussions, and the side-arguments they spawn, are essentially meaningless. Being in the top 5 is such a relative, changeable thing. One year the 6th best QB could be great, another year the 3rd best could just be good. What does it matter?

It's all relative, yet the discussion is phrased in absolute terms. Instead of Brady "being in the top 5," pundits and some fans say Brady "is a top-5." That's an important difference in words. Being "in" a top 5 suggests that there's a list that QBs enter, fall out of, rise, and fall. The list is permanent, the player's spot on the list is not. Saying someone "is" a top 5 suggests that it's the player's greatness that is permanent, that he has some sort of top-fiveness quality to him, and somehow this attribute can only be possessed by 5 players at any given time. Once this greatness transfers to another player, the player drops out of the top 5.

So instead of acknowledging that these are rankings and are relative, they become attributes, described the same way that someone might describe height or weight. "He's a tall QB," "He's a big QB," "He's a top-5 QB." Saying a player "is a top-5 QB" sounds much more absolute than saying "he's in the top 5."

It pisses me off.

The biggest reason I hate these discussions is because football is so team-oriented that it doesn't matter if your QB is in the top 5 or not. Monson didn't include Russell Wilson in his top 5, but did include Philip Rivers. Who won the last Super Bowl? Was Joe Flacco "a top-5 QB" in 2012? Eli Manning wasn't a top 5 candidate until the Giants won in '07 (against Brady, who was a top 1 QB that season), then Eli was top 5 material, then he wasn't, then the Giants won again so he was, now he's not.

A "top-5 QB" is not a necessary ingredient to victory. Monson's top 5 (Rivers, Peyton Manning, Drew Brees, Aaron Rodgers, and Ben Roethlisberger) have a total of 5 Super Bowl rings, none in the last 3 years. Non-top-5 QBs have won the last 3 Super Bowls, and wear a total of 7 rings.

Six of the last 11 Super Bowl winning QBs aren't among Monson's top 5. Eight of the last 14 Conference champions have been helmed by QBs outside his top 5. In the past three seasons, only 1 of Monson's top 5 has made the Super Bowl, and he lost.

Have I made my point?

Two conclusions can be drawn from this:

1. Monson's list isn't very good

2. More importantly, teams win Super Bowls, not top 5 quarterbacks

Tom Brady may or may not be in the top 5 in 2014. Time will tell. Ultimately, it doesn't mean that much in determining the fate of the 2014 Patriots. And here's why:

If the Patriots win the Super Bowl this season, it will be because they did not need Brady to be amazing.

I'll phrase the argument to address Monson: If the Patriots win the Super Bowl, it will be because they did not need Brady to be a top-5 QB.

In other words, for the Pats to win this year, they have to win as a team. Brady could be the best QB in the League, but if the Pats NEED him to be "a top-5 QB," they'll lose in the end, no matter how good Brady is. By the same token, if the Patriots DON'T need Brady to be "a top-5 QB" to be successful, then they have a strong chance at winning it all. And that's the only way they'll have a chance, if they don't need him to be amazing all the time.

Therefore, Brady's position in the rankings of quarterbacks is irrelevant. He's part of a team. An important part, but still just one part. If that team needs him to be spectacular, the team will fail. If the team doesn't need him to be spectacular, the team has a good chance to succeed.

Where Brady falls in QB rankings is meaningless for the Patriots, and should be meaningless for their fans. What matters is that the Patriots don't rely solely on him to win. Brady being in or out of the NFL's top 5 QBs has little bearing on the success or failure of the 2014 Patriots.

When the Red Sox Won the World Series in 2004...

A Wednesday night in late October 2004, in a dorm's common room in Ithaca, NY, about 18 college students all focused on a low-def TV attached to a wall. On the screen, a ground ball bounced lazily up the middle to Red Sox closer Keith Foulke. After collecting the ball, he trotted a few steps toward first. As the ball left Foulke's hand and spun toward the waiting glove of Doug Mientkiewicz, time froze in my mind. It was happening. It was actually happening.

Until that moment, I feared the Red Sox would blow it somehow. That they'd find a way to lose Game 4, then the series, completing the worst collapse in the history of sports, because that's what I was convinced they had to do. In the years leading up to this moment, I had read and heard about Buckner in '86, and Dent in '78, and Enos Slaughter in '46. Aaron Boone's homerun the year prior was my generation's firsthand experience of The Curse. They must lose. That was the way of things.

Mientkiewicz would drop the ball, the Cardinals would rally in the 9th and win the game. The Sox would lose 4 straight, mirroring the 3-0 collapse of the Yankees in the ALCS, making the choke even more spectacularly painful. All that late-inning magic, all those stressful games, all of it a buildup to the biggest disappointment in sports history.

None of that happened.

Mientkiewicz caught the ball. Once I unfroze time, only a second had passed but it felt like more than a minute. Jumping around in jubilation in the common room wasn't enough. We ran outside to the quad, yelling, screaming, hugging. Our yells drew Sox fans from the surrounding buildings, who poured out into the night to join us. As the crowd grew, someone suggested we run to the fountains on the other side of campus. There, other groups of Sox fans from other parts of campus seemed to somehow know to meet us. It must have been some psychic connection, or some notion of a central location to gather. It wasn't coordinated on social media. Twitter didn't yet exist. We wouldn't know what Facebook was for another 2 weeks, when it swept across Ithaca College's campus in early November 2004.

Hours later, after we'd all returned to our dorms and our rooms, at about 1:30 a.m., a friend from North Reading came to my room and said he couldn't sleep. Neither could I. We decided to drive to Boston, along with our RA from Newton. We drove 6 hours. My friends slept, I stayed awake and watched the sun rise over Massachusetts, shining down on the home of the World Series Champs for the first time in 86 years. That's 1,032 months, 4,472 weeks, 31,411 days, 754,000 hours, 45.2 million minutes, 2.7 billion seconds.

2.7 billion seconds, and I still clearly remember that last second, the one I froze, as the ball and landed in Mientkiewicz's oversized first-baseman's glove. That moment felt like it lasted a minute. The feeling lasted longer. I can still go back to that moment and relive it, and feel that feeling again. It's great. Pure joy.

So yeah, it was pretty cool seeing the 2004 Red Sox back at Fenway Wednesday night.

Photo Credit:
Jared Wickerham/Getty Images

5 Reasons Why the Red Sox Suck

It's official. The Red Sox suck. They might not suck a month from now, they certainly didn't suck last year, but on the 22nd of May in 2014, they certifiably suck.

Why? How could a World Championship team that never lost more than 3 in a row, devolve so quickly into a team with the 6th worst record in baseball, that's 4th in their division, and has just lost 6 consecutive games? Here are the reasons:

#1 Lost Offense
The 2014 Red Sox are scoring 4.07 runs per game, and are 17th in MLB in runs. The 2013 Sox scored 5.27 and scored the most runs in baseball. The Sox are scoring 1.2 runs per game less this year, and are on pace to score 194 less in the season. Where did those runs go?

Jacoby Ellsbury took many of them when he left and was not replaced. In 2013 Ellsbury got on base 219 times. He got 48 extra-base hits. He stole 52 bases. He got on base, he got into scoring position, and his presence at leadoff allowed Dustin Pedroia to hit later in the lineup.

Ellsbury was replaced with Grady Sizemore (.218 average, .293 OBP) and Jackie Bradley Jr. (.206 average, .302 OBP). As a team, the entire Red Sox roster is on pace to steal 50 bases this season. They stole 123 last year.

Jarrod Saltalamacchia's production also was not adequately replaced. He wasn't a Silver Slugger candidate or anything, but he did produce, giving the Sox an .804 OPS and 14 homeruns. He's been replaced by AJ Pierzynski, who doesn't quite fit with the Red Sox philosophy of patience. Pierswingski's OPS is .656, his OBP is .045 lower than Salty's in 2013, his SLG is .103 lower. Salty struck out 3.2 times per walk, but Pierswingski strikes out 6 times per walk. Salty saw 4.03 pitches per plate appearance in 2013, Pierswingski sees 3.47 in 2014.

Losing this production, the Red Sox depended more on a guy like Daniel Nava to put back-to-back solid seasons together for the first time in his career. Nava was a pleasant surprise in 2013, with a .385 OBP, hitting a few homeruns, knocking in 66, scoring 77.

In 2014, he hit .149 in 67 at-bats in Boston. In AAA Pawtucket, he's hitting .267 in 75 at-bats. He's being struck out more than he's walking, by AAA pitchers. He is getting on base (.371 OBP), so maybe he deserves a call up soon. What could it hurt to try?

This team relied too much on hoping its young players would work out. Xander Bogaerts has done his part on offense (although his defense has been abysmal). But Will Middlebrooks is hitting .197, and I already mentioned Jackie Bradley Jr.

The Red Sox are getting on base. They're 4th in baseball with a .331 team OBP. However, they have no power. The team's .379 SLG is 19th in the Majors (and about .050 lower than the team's SLG in 2013). The Sox are 21st in homeruns with 36.

#2 Clay Buchholz
The 2013 Sox were 11-1 in Buchholz starts before he got hurt in June. They were 3-1 in his starts when he returned in September, then 3-1 in his postseason starts. In 2014, the Sox are 3-6 when Buchholz takes the mound.

By this time last year he had 9 quality starts. He has 4 in 2014. He says he's healthy. I wish he were injured.

#3 Team Defense
The Red Sox have the 12th most errors (30) in baseball, last year they had the 8th fewest (80). They're on pace to commit 28 more errors in 2014 than they committed in 2013.

The Red Sox allowed 43 unearned runs in 2013, but in 2014 are on pace to allow 83. So instead of allowing an unearned run once every 4 games, the Sox are allowing an unearned run every other game.

#4 Felix Doubront
Doubront was decent at the back of the rotation last year. He won 11 games, threw 16 quality starts, and finished the year with a 4.32 ERA. Not bad for a back end starter. The Sox were 18-11 in his starts. They're 4-5 in his starts this year. And he's banged his elbow against a car door, and hit the DL with a classic OIBI (Only In Baseball Injury, pronounced wee-bee).

#5 No Clutchness
Did you know the Red Sox blew 42% of their save opportunities in 2013? The Sox were the 3rd worst team in baseball in converting saves. Why is that stat so shocking? Because they won so many close games.

Even when a reliever blew a lead, the Sox would find a way to come back and win. That same reliever might dig deep and keep the game tied, or keep the Sox within 1 run. Then the offense would find a way to win in the 9th or in extras.

The Sox hit .278 with runners in scoring position (RISP) last year. They're hitting .240 with RISP this year. More impressively, the Sox had a .794 OPS with RISP in '14. It's down to .695 this year. The Sox slugged .078 higher with runners in scoring position last year.

Xander Bogaerts, who is having a fine offensive year with a .381 OBP, is hitting .158 with runners in scoring position.

Jonny Gomes was Mr. Clutch last year, hitting .346 with RISP. He's down to .286 this year. Ortiz went down from .315 to .222. Pedroia from .312 to .270. Ortiz and Pedroia are the team's best hitters. If they're not doing the job with RISP, the offense can't function. On the bright side, we know they can, and they probably will improve those numbers.

The Sox offense should get better, but there's a ceiling to it. Pedroia, Ortiz, and probably Bogaerts will improve with runners in scoring position. However, the rest of the offense is what it is.

Once Clay Buchholz does start to pitch better, he'll probably get hurt.

The team's defense improves with the return of Stephen Drew. And perhaps the offense as well, if Bogaerts plays 3rd and Middlebrooks brings his sub-Mendoza average to the bench.

I don't think Felix Doubront will be much better than what he's been.

Clutchness is unpredictable. Last year the Sox had clutchness in their blood. This year it's like they've been infected with a virulent strain of anti-clutchness.

Photo Credit:
Elise Amendola/Associated Press