I'm back.

I think.

First off, many thanks to all who were so generous with their praise -- both on Your Turn and Sons of Sam Horn -- of the column I wrote for Wednesday's newspaper after Joe Kerrigan's dismissal. I decided to archive it as a notebook entry, to begin the 2002 columns at a semi-logical starting point.

As to where I've been . . . I don't know where to begin. First, I was on vacation for the last two weeks of August. Then there was a ton of work to catch up with upon my return. Then came Sept. 11, and the world turned upside down. Then, in October, our world -- at the Journal, that is -- turned upside down when the company offered buyouts to selected employees; four of our writers, all of whom were past or nearing retirement age, left the department, and we weren't able to replace them until the beginning of the year. This had the double-barreled effect of a) my having to scramble desperately to fill holes for two months (since two other writers are on leave), and b) having my time consumed with job interviews. It wasn't until mid-February that we finally completed the hiring process and got back to full complement. Oh, and then there was this football team in Foxboro that won the Super Bowl . . .

During the rare instances when I had a little time to do some writing, I would delve into a Your Turn thread that I found interesting. And whenever I did, I realized how much I liked to write about the Sox. Yet I doubted -- seriously -- that I'd ever be able to get back into it.

Kerrigan's firing forced my hand. It happened at 6 p.m. Tuesday and we had no columnist available. (Bill Reynolds was in New York for the Big East tournament, and Jim Donaldson was previewing the Patriots' championship DVD.) Sean McAdam, as many of you know, lost his father last week and was still unavailable. (He was very touched by your condolences, by the way, and asked me to pass along his thanks.) It was me and Steve Krasner . . . who churned out two stories on the firing after having already written four earlier that day. I was the only option for a column.

I jumped back in, writing from home. And when I was finished, I knew I'd resurrect the notebook. I had to. I loved it, and missed it, too much. There are going to be times when the demands of my real job become too overwhelming, I know, and you may not hear from me for a spell. But I'm determined that won't happen too often.

So. Here I am. And here the Sox are, sitting in Fort Myers with no manager, no full-time general manager, more owners than you can shake a stick at, and a collection of players who, if everything breaks right, could make this a very interesting summer in New England. Maybe even as interesting, in fact, as the Patriotic fall and winter we just enjoyed.

During an idle moment a few weeks ago, I started scribbling down the STATS 2002 projections for Sox' hitters and pitchers. I left the numbers at home, unfortunately, so I don't have them here, but I did what I always do when the STATS handbook comes out: I add up the offensive and defensive numbers, run the Pythagorean Method, and see what W-L record pops up.

The number that popped up was 109-53.

Well, I knew that couldn't be right, and I immediately realized the runs allowed number was strictly earned runs allowed. Since 9% of the runs allowed in the American League in 2001 were unearned, I increased the R.A. number by 9%. Then I ran the method again.

At this risk of sounding like our good friend Louis DiLullo, it came out at 103-59.

Now, I don't really think the Sox are going to win 103 games. I tried to poke holes in the projections, and it wasn't hard. STATS predicts a complete and full recovery for Pedro Martinez and has him down for something like a 20-4, 1.92 season. It's not to say it won't happen, but I'd be reluctant to predict a full return for Pedro without seeing him pitch a few more times. The Dustin Hermanson and John Burkett projections assumed they'd still be in the National League, and we'd have to adjust those numbers upward to make it truly accurate. STATS still has Derek Lowe in the bullpen. There's a lot to quibble with here.

But there's a lot that can't be quibbled with. A Ramirez/Damon/Nixon outfield is certainly one of the best in the majors. If we assume the Sox will run a Daubach/Henderson platoon at DH, we can also assume it will a lot more productive than whatever they got last year from Bichette and O'Leary. (I know they weren't strictly DHs; I'm figuring they're going to share, with Ramirez, the LF/DH duties, pretty much as Bichette and O'Leary did with Ramirez in '01.) Tony Clark is a terrific upgrade at first base. I may be in the minority, but I happen to think Shea Hillenbrand -- who turns 27 in July -- will graduate from useless to mediocre (offensively, at least) at third. Oh, and there's this shortstop who's back in action . . .

As I see it, the only real question in the everyday lineup is at second base. But they may actually be able to absorb Rey Sanchez's bat if everyone stays healthy and produces reasonably close to expectations. I hope that's true, because I'm more than a little intrigued to find out if Baseball Prospectus's eye-popping assertion -- "If there's one player who justifies being on the field for his defense, it's Sanchez" -- is true.

The pitching is more problematic, of course, and the key to the whole thing is Martinez. The Sox only allow 680 runs, or whatever it was, if Pedro is Pedro. If he's not, we run into the same problems -- lack of a dominant starter, danger of bullpen overload -- that we had after June 5 last year.

Whenever I read, on either board, a post-mortem of the 2001 season, it's always pointed out by Kerrigan-supporters and/or Williams-bashers that the Sox stumbled along at a .500 or so pace before Williams was fired and that they were already on the downhill slope when Kerrigan took over. That's absolutely true. And why? How about the fact that the Sox lost Pedro Martinez? They were 35-25 (.583), a 94-win pace, after games of June 9, which was the day Martinez lost to the Phillies. That was also the day his year-long shoulder pain became so acute it forced him from the rotation. He made two more starts -- a five-inning stint at Tampa on June 21, and a 4 2/3-inning outing at home against the Devil Rays -- from then until Aug. 26. In the meantime, the Sox went 30-28 (.517), an 83-win pace, between June 10 and the day Jimy Williams was fired. What no one ever says, but what is (to me) absolutely undeniable, is that the loss of Pedro Martinez was the single biggest factor in that downshift to third gear. The piling-on departures of Garciaparra and Everett in late August merely exacerbated a problem that had already existed . . . and that wasn't going to be overcome.

I remember Jerry Remy saying in June or July that the loss of Martinez would hurt the Red Sox more than the loss of Garciaparra because of the ripple effect it had on the rest of the pitching staff. I scoffed at the time, but he was absolutely right. The Sox went 47-54 from June 10 to the end of the season. Granted, Martinez wasn't the only player who went to the sidelines in that span, but his departure marks the line that separates what the Sox were in the first two months of the season (a pretty darn good team) and what they were in the final four (a struggling, win-as-many-as-they-lose pretender).

But he's back, and he says he's healthy. The early indications are all positive. That's encouraging, because with Pedro Martinez in tow, these Sox have a chance to be awfully good this season.

I sure hope I get to write about it.