Despite recent fall, Sox can still celebrate

Jonathan Papelbon and the Red Sox should have saved the celebrating for the AL Division Series. Photo from this site.

The Red Sox clinched the John Blake Cup—and with it the American League wild card—in perhaps the most anticlimactic fashion possible early this morning, when, hours after the Sox dropped their fifth in a row (albeit after a frenzied comeback against the Blue Jays fell one run short), the Rangers were eliminated from contention with a 5-2 loss to the Angels.

Terry Francona said he wasn’t planning to stick around to watch the Rangers game, but apparently a lot of the Sox players did and whooped it up once the Angels won. Which, quite frankly, strikes me as somewhat lame. Clinch the berth on the field, or clinch it by virtue of a Rangers loss a few hours after a Sox win? Party until dawn. Watching the Sox clinch the AL East by watching the Yankees lose to the Orioles on the final Friday of the 2007 season—and the subsequent celebration—was one of the most remarkable things I’ve ever experienced as a sportswriter.

But celebrating a wild card berth clinched hours after a loss seems a little excessive. Of course, the Yankees celebrated a division title earned in alternately similar yet far worse fashion in 2000, when they were in the midst of losing 15 of their final 18 games, and things turned out pretty well for them, so what do I know?

(And this may be of interest only to me, but the Sox’ decision to celebrate without allowing the media—not even the NESN cameras—into the clubhouse is a fascinating one, one that perhaps symbolizes not only the Sox’ continuing desire to conduct even the most routine of business in private fashion but also an ever-increasing divide between the franchise and the media. I smell the extra chapter in the paperback version of Fighting Words…but don’t wait, order the hardcover now!)

Even though they qualified following a loss, I don’t think for a second the Sox backed into the playoffs. A team that loses seven of nine games and still makes the playoffs with five days to spare didn’t back in, it merely earned the berth by distancing itself from the rest of the field weeks earlier. I’m willing to chalk this stumble up to human nature—with the Rangers in the midst of a toxic stretch in which they’ve lost 12 of 18 games, including eight by at least five runs, there was no sense of urgency to the final lap of the wild card pursuit—as well as the Sox running into the buzz saw Yankees last weekend.

Still, it’s natural to grow a bit skeptical about the Sox in light of their recent hiccups. But having learned my lesson multiple times this year about burying the Yankees too early or declaring the sky was descending upon the Sox, I figured I’d try the middle-of-the-road approach and research how teams that stumbled into the playoffs fared once they got there.

Except, well, someone beat me to it, and did a bang-up job in the process. Lisa Swan at The Faster Times (link found courtesy of NBCSports.com's Circling the Bases blog) ran the post-Sept. 1 numbers on all of this decade’s playoff teams and notes that two playoff teams that played sub-.500 ball after September 1—the 2000 Yankees and the 2006 Cardinals—went on to win the World Series while none of the 10 playoffs teams that played .700 ball after Sept. 1 won it all. In fact, the only team that hot to make it to the World Series was the 2007 Rockies, who of course lost to the Sox in a four-game sweep.

Bob Harkins of NBCSports.com notes that the idea that a team has to be hot in September in order to win the World Series probably stems from the fact that of the four champions to play .600 or better ball in September, three were wild cards—the 2002 Angels, the 2003 Marlins and the 2004 Sox.

As usual, the truth is a little different than perception. Swan’s research reveals the average post-Sept. 1 winning percentage for eventual World Series winners is .586, a smidge lower than the .596 winning percentage recorded by World Series losers.

The Red Sox’ winning percentage thus far this month, courtesy of Harkins? .555. Not great, not awful and, as Harkins also notes, not relevant at all come the first pitch of the Division Series. Especially since—and this is me writing, not Harkins or Swan—the Sox are playing the Angels, which gives the Sox a pretty damn good shot at earning a second and far more appropriate champagne-fueled celebration.

Email Jerry at jbeach73@gmail.com or follow him on Twitter at http://twitter.com/jerrybeach. 

The Yankees are coming and all I can do is stifle a yawn

Moments like this against the Red Sox and Angels have been exceedingly rare for the Yankees in 2009. Photo from this site.

If it’s July, it must be time for the Yankees to make their annual run at the Red Sox. In 2005, the Yankees went 11-2 from July 2 through July 18, during which they went from six games back of the Sox to a half-game up. The Yankees promptly fell out of first place July 19 but returned there Sept. 21 and ended up winning the division by a tiebreaker over the Sox.

In 2006, the Yankees went 19-9 from July 1 through Aug. 3 to turn a four-game deficit into a one-game lead. They never relinquished first place on their way to winning the East by 10 games over the Blue Jays and 11 games over the third-place Sox.

In 2007, the Yankees went 15-4 from July 5 through July 25 to gain 5 ½ games on the Sox, but their most serious run at the Sox would occur in late September, when the Yankees twice moved within 1 ½ games before finishing second, two games back.

Last year, the Yankees won their first eight games after the All-Star Break to shave the Rays’ lead from six games to three and close within one game of the wild card-leading Sox, though the Yankees didn’t get any closer the rest of the way and finished eight games behind the Rays and six behind the Sox.

The Yankees appear to be in the midst of another red-hot post-All-Star Break run: They improved to 4-0 since THE AMERICAN LEAGUE WON THE GAME THAT COUNTS MORE THAN ALL THE REST!!!!! and tied the suddenly skidding Sox atop the AL East with a 2-1 win over the Orioles last night.

As noted in the final chapter of Fighting Words (shameless plug!), Sox players didn’t appreciate the perceived hysteria among the media masses during the Yankees’ mid-summer runs from 2005 through 2007. But you won’t find any hand-wringing here over the approaching Yankees, not with their very recent inability to sustain momentum upon earning at least a share of first place.

This is the second time this month the Yankees have, in a matter of days, made up a three-game deficit and tied the Sox for first place. On July 9, the Yankees completed a three-game sweep of the Twins while the Sox fell to the Royals. The Yankees then went west and gave up 29 runs in enduring a three-game sweep at the hands of the Angels while the Sox won three in a row against the Royals.

In addition, the Yankees began a three-game series against the Sox June 9 with a one-game lead. They were swept by the Sox by a combined score of 17-8 and went on to fall as many as five games out on June 23-24.

The Yankees’ current run is, admittedly, an impressive one fueled by pitching instead of their vaunted video game offense: They’ve won the four games despite scoring just 11 runs and have won the last three by 2-1 scores, the first time an American League team has done that since the 1987 Twins.

That Twins team went on to win the World Series, but it’s kind of difficult to take these Yankees seriously as a championship contender considering they’re 2-12 against the Sox and Angels, the top two teams in the AL. Of course, with six games left this week against the last-place Orioles and Athletics, the Yankees will have plenty of opportunity to fatten up before facing the wild card-contending Rays and the AL Central-contending White Sox next week.

Don’t be in a rush to reserve first place for the Yankees tonight, though. The Yankees’ scheduled starter tonight is Sergio Mitre, who hasn’t pitched in the bigs since 2007 and posted a 5.36 ERA in five years with the Cubs and Marlins. The Sox, meanwhile, start Josh Beckett for the first time in nine days as he opposes Rangers rookie Tommy Hunter. I’d expect the tie to be broken—in favor of the Sox—by this time tomorrow morning.

Email Jerry at jbeach73@gmail.com.

Fighting Words Q&A: Lou Merloni

Lou Merloni, right, remains close friends with ex-Sox superstar Nomar Garciaparra. Photo from this site.

I was fortunate enough to land most of the interviews I wanted in the writing of Fighting Words, but there were a few who got away—most notably Nomar Garciaparra, the shy and withdrawn franchise icon who had a strained relationship with the press before he was shockingly traded by the Red Sox five years ago this month.

I was hoping to catch Garciaparra in Washington or Pittsburgh when the Cubs made trips there in May 2005, but those plans were snuffed out when Garciaparra suffered a gruesome groin injury in April that sidelined him until August. Subsequent attempts to speak to him via various intermediaries were unsuccessful.

I relied on various conversations with reporters as well as Garciaparra’s friends and ex-teammates in (hopefully) painting a balanced picture of Garciaparra’s complicated relationship with the press. You be the judge in Fighting Words, out now! (shameless plug over)

One of the most helpful people to talk to about Garciaparra was Lou Merloni, the utility infielder and Framingham native who was considered Garciaparra’s closest confidant on the Sox. This interview was conducted during the 2005-06 winter, during which Merloni—who worked for NESN last year and is now with Comcast New England—was with the Indians. With Garciaparra and the Athletics completing their series against the Sox tonight, I thought it was an appropriate time to unveil this Q&A.


What was your viewpoint of the media during your time with the Red Sox and specifically the attention surrounding the Sox’ pursuit of a championship?

The six years I was there, from ’98 to ’03, you could just see it progressively growing. We lost in the ALCS a couple times while I was there—obviously, 2003 was very intense, being in a Game Seven and all—but you could see it every year that we were just getting close enough. We had a good team, but it wasn’t good enough. It doesn’t matter if you win 100 games, you need to win the World Series. And that was just coming to a head. That team, going through that in ’04, put that behind them.

You could just see it. The pressure was kind of coming down in the clubhouse. Here we are, in the playoffs reading reasons why we can’t win compared to other teams. It was tough to see, and I think it started to filter into the clubhouse.

Did you sense any tensions between the team and the press?

No, I really don’t think that. It seemed to me that it was just starting to come to a head [with] Jimy Williams. I think everybody in that clubhouse really liked him. He really got hit pretty hard by the media and the fans. Grady Little, too. I think from the time I was there in ’98, ’99, it was calm. The core of the young team was coming together, everyone was excited about the future. What happened is that core finally came together two or three years later and it was time to win. Pedro’s contract was running out. Nomar, Varitek, Derek Lowe—the core of this ballclub’s contracts were running out and it was time to win. And that sense of urgency had taken over, intensity-wise in the media and the clubhouse, and everybody started to feel the heat.

Dan Duquette had a strained relationship with the press. Did you ever sense that filtering into the clubhouse and did you have any observations on Duquette’s interactions with the press?

If you’re a shy guy and a quiet guy—now you’re in the big leagues expected to be a spokesperson and outgoing. Dan wasn’t a very good communicator. He was very to himself and didn’t give you a lot, and I think the media, out of a GM, they want more than that, to know the reasons why you made this deal. And once again, that just wasn’t Dan Duquette. He wasn’t a very outgoing [person]. Having that type of job in that type of city, I think you need to give people a little bit more than that.

Manny Delcarmen, who grew up just outside of Boston, said he felt the media was supportive of him [as a rookie in 2005]. Did you sense the media was more supportive of you because you were a local native?

Absolutely. When I first came up it was great—supportive of Framingham, the local guy, got a local guy on our team. And it was outstanding. As a player, though, you need to realize one of the tough parts about playing at home is everything is just kind of blown up. Everything is doubled for us as local guys. When you’re doing bad and when you’re struggling, it’s doubly worse because the fact that everybody is reading about it, reading this columnist’s opinionated article about how bad you are. ‘I don’t care what town he’s from, get him out of here’—that hits home very hard, because family and friends are reading about it. It’s not easy.

Were you comfortable serving as a team spokesman type?

I think in time, I learned my lesson. My first couple years, getting sent up and down, they might have caught me at the wrong times. That’s the tough part, when I got sent down. I wasn’t too happy about it, the cameras [are] at your locker, sometimes you need a minute to calm down there a little bit. But unfortunately I didn’t do that, I said some things that made people [say] ‘Stop your crying.’ And I took that in stride. I can deal with that. I learned my lesson from it. I think, over the years, I got a lot more comfortable with what to say and what not to say. Unfortunately, I think sometimes you just really can’t speak your mind. You have to tae a second, take a moment to say the right thing. And I think that’s something that you learn in time. I feel comfortable with that.

Is it essential for a team like the Red Sox to have a handful of players who are comfortable with the press and can shield others from it?

When I came up my first year, that’s what made Mo Vaughn so valuable. He took it all. If the media was cornering a player—a younger player—he would step in and answer the questions. He took that heat off guys. Took all that media attention, put it on to himself. He felt like he could handle it. There’s a lot of value in guys like that, like Millar and Damon, that took the heat off, that did the talking.

At the same point, the responsibility comes with that. Talking to Kevin now that he’s out of there, there’s a sense of relief, [of] ‘maybe I shouldn’t have put myself out so much.’ You open the door now for the criticism. When you’re going good, everything is great. The minute you start to struggle, it’s what you’ve created: ‘I talked so much, now comes this spotlight’ and people come to you for answers. It can be difficult, handling the media in Boston. The best way [was] Bill Mueller—he kind of came in, did his job and left. People don’t even realize what he accomplished there. That would probably be the best way to approach it.

You're good friends with Nomar Garciaparra. What were his thoughts on the press and was he uncomfortable with life as a public figure?

His first year in the league, he didn’t do much talking at all, didn’t like talking to the media. He was a quiet guy [with] Mo taking all the heat off him. [When Vaughn left, it was his turn now to be that guy and his personality isn’t one that wants to speak and put [himself] out there. His personality wasn’t like a Kevin Millar or Johnny Damon—very outgoing. And he paid the price for it. Kevin Millar, basically everybody loved him and loved every word out of his mouth. Everyone telling him to shut up. So you’ve got to find that happy medium, I guess.

I think you go back to the type of person you are before you get there. [Nomar was a] very family-oriented guy, very private, tried to keep the private in his life, and he turned into the type of player in Boston, because of his accomplishments, where everybody wanted to know everything they could about him because he was a superstar. People are trying to get into his life—‘What’s it like being you? What is this like?’—and he just wasn’t willing to give any of that up. It got to the point where if you wanted to ask him about the game tonight, [he’d] do that.

Then he started this whole thing with [future wife] Mia Hamm, and that really got a lot of attention into his personal life, [reporters] coming up to his locker and asking about his relationship with her. And he really closed himself off and became very negative. And he brought some of it upon himself, he’ll admit it, but at the same point, he just didn’t want to talk about things. And that’s his personality.

He had a tough time dealing with everything. Now that you’re a superstar, everyone expected you to let them into your world. And not everybody is like that.

How did you think Nomar was treated after his trade in 2004?

What went on afterward—whoever went on a tangent about him those two months afterward should just be embarrassed. Obviously, we’re good friends, and reading stuff like that, I think he was definitely treated unfairly. Rather than take a step back and say thank you for the years [and] you probably will be the best shortstop to ever come thru and wear a Boston Red Sox uniform, everyone jumped on the bandwagon and bashed him. I do think there were some people out there who appreciated his professionalism and how he wanted to handle it, even those people who wanted him to give more.

But at the same time, a lot of people stabbed him in the back. His job is to go out and play as hard as he can. A lot of people did appreciate him. Some o the people that really bashed him and jumped on the bandwagon have got to take a look at themselves and see what they wrote.

Email Jerry at jbeach73@gmail.com.

America follows the lead of its athletes, stops reading the paper

Some of us preferred the newspaper to See Spot Run. Photo from this site, and surprisingly not from my parents' house.

Bad week for the newspaper business. Of course, when was the last time the industry had a good week? 1972?

Anyway, on consecutive days this week Keith Foulke and Joba Chamberlain declared they do not read the newspaper. This of course brings to mind what Curt Schilling said in September 2004, when I asked him about players who say they don’t read the paper during an interview for Fighting Words (shameless plug).

“Well, most of them are lying,” Schilling said. “That’s one thing I’ve learned: The guys who yell and scream about someone reading the newspaper or checking the stats—they’re the first ones in the morning. Don’t read the paper? They read it.”

That said, having covered the blissfully defiant Foulke, I have little reason to doubt he’s telling the truth. I haven’t covered Chamberlain, but since he’s only 23 years old, I have little reason to doubt he’s telling the truth, either.

Why would Chamberlain ever have to read the newspaper? Typing this sentence makes me feel quite old, but Chamberlain probably doesn’t remember a time when he couldn’t fire up the computer and have the entire world at his finger tips. Back in my day we handwrote letters to friends across the country whom we’d never met and had to write research papers by going to the library and thumbing through the Readers’ Guide to Periodical Literature. And we liked it!

Unfortunately, but not without considerable justification, the rest of us old fogeys are following in the footsteps of the hippity hoppity young’uns like Chamberlain. We’re a product of our times, too, and we want all the information we can possibly absorb and we want it now. Most of us have become accustomed to having the news of the day delivered right to our Palm.

Full disclosure on the latter point: I’m not one of those folks—yet—because I spend enough time tethered to the computer. Allowing me to feed my latent case of ADD by surfing the Net from a hand-held device and looking for whatever strikes my fancy at the moment would really destroy my already tepid productivity.

Most of all, though, we’re not stupid, and we recognize that the people running newspapers into the ground are treating us as if we are in fact idiots. They’re gutting the staff and the news hole, eliminating the coverage we most want to read and then charging us more to read a whole lot less. A few weeks ago, I was in Connecticut and I finished The Hartford Courant sports section before I finished my bagel. Sad.

The powers that be have also gotten us accustomed to getting the product for free online, and it’s awfully hard to put that particular genie back in the bottle.

The demise of the newspaper as we know it is too bad, because devouring the sports section from the time I could read is what inspired me to become a sportswriter. And it’s disappointing that today’s 20-somethigns probably have no idea what they missed.

I remember being in college in 1996 and trying to avoid reading the box scores on espnet.sportszone.com (and you had to type the whole damn thing in too) on the one computer that had Internet access in the newspaper office because I didn’t want to ruin the ritualistic and daily joy of reading the box scores in the Newsday that was delivered to my dorm room. Now, I’m actually thinking about going to campus the first day of the fall semester to see if Newsday even bothers selling subscriptions to students anymore.

As for Foulke and Chamberlain, they weren’t making some grand societal statement. For ballplayers, “I don’t read the papers” is an automated response—a self-defense mechanism for whenever criticism or bad press comes up, or perhaps something they are instructed to say during media training sessions.

The medium might be dying but the message is timeless: We don’t pay any attention to what the media writes or says. Maybe it’s time to tweak the phrasing though. Then again, “I only use the Internet to check my email and my Facebook” or “I don’t subscribe to the Twitter feed of my team's beat writer” doesn’t roll off the tongue quite as easily.

Email Jerry at jbeach73@gmail.com.