Boston Red Sox
01:00 AM EDT on Tuesday, August 31, 2004
Random Red Sox thoughts while wondering what the reaction would be -- both in Boston and New York -- if it had been the Yankees slicing six games off a 10 1/2-game Red Sox lead during a two-week stretch in August . . .
For starters, Mientkiewicz has played in only 21 of 28 games since joining Boston . . . and in seven of those he was a late-inning defensive replacement. Cabrera's been a regular -- 27 games as a member of the Red Sox -- and he is hitting .270, but his offensive effectiveness is compromised by a sub-standard .291 on-base percentage.
To which their defenders will no doubt cry: What about their defense? That's why the Sox got them, isn't it?
Fair point, but is a tighter infield the main reason the Sox have blazed through August? Boston's team E.R.A. since July 31 (3.83) is lower than it was before then (4.12), and the number of unearned runs allowed has dropped dramatically. But the Sox are also hitting for a higher average (.280 before, .296 after) and scoring more runs per game (5.63 before, 6.07 after).
It's far more likely the Sox are winning because they're both scoring more, and allowing fewer, runs. Cabrera and Mientkiewicz are certainly helping with the latter, but they haven't had much to do with the former.
Who has? Start with Jason Varitek, who's hit .426
with 5 homers and 20 RBI since July 31. And Bill Mueller, who's at .355 with a .439 on-base percentage and a .505 slugging percentage. Fact is, except for David Ortiz (.250), every Red Sox hitter has either more or less maintained his previous productivity or stepped it up a notch in the last 28 games. And even Ortiz has 6 homers and 21 RBI since July 31.
The danger in baseball -- and in life -- is seeking simple answers to complex questions. The question of "Why are the Red Sox playing so well?" may not be particularly complex, but the answer isn't as simple as "They traded for Orlando Cabrera and Doug Mientkiewicz."
When you score more runs and allow fewer runs, you win. The Sox have picked up the pace in all phases of the game, not just defense.
It sure beats losing to them, though.
Yet there's almost no talk of the Sox completing the charge and taking down the Yankees . . . which would be regarded as a given if it was the Yanks who were the hunters and the Sox the hunted.
Why? Because -- most people believe -- the Red Sox never beat the Yankees. It's not true, but it hasn't been true lately. And, besides, who needs the truth when you've got a stereotype to embrace?
A simple answer to a complex question.
Almost as simple as saying something won't happen because it's never happened before.
|
More top stories
Most Viewed Yesterday
Pedroia misses game to be with pregnant wife
Imprisoned for murder, ex-Providence police officer will still collect disability pension
Providence woman slain, boyfriend arrested in N.Y.
Most active surveys
Should the R.I. Tea Party have been dumped from Bristol's Fourth of July parade?
What would you do about the two tent cities in Providence?
React to proposed toll changes on the Pell, Mount Hope bridges
Is Narragansett's policy of using 'orange stickers' to mark party houses unconstitutional?
Most e-mailed in the last 24 hours
Reader Reaction










You must be logged in to contribute. Log in | Register Now!
You are logged in as screenname | Log Out
You are logged in, but do not have a "screen" name. Create a Screen Name