Suspiciously Superstitious

So, I was listening to the Bruins game last night, while keeping an eye on my Twitter feed. I was taken by how many references people were making to their superstitious actions during the game. Maybe they were wearing their lucky shirt, or lucky hat. Maybe they left the room because they were bad luck, or stayed in the room because they were good luck. Maybe they weren’t even sure what they needed to do, but whatever they were doing must be working. And, no, I wasn’t immune to that. After all, I wasn’t wearing my unlucky jersey.

But, I was reminded of some of the superstitious acts that people go through for the Red Sox. They were especially prevalent before the 2004 championship as everyone had a new method to “break the curse.” I think my favorite being the theory that dragging Babe Ruth’s old piano from the bottom of a lake would somehow do it. I remember reading somewhere that there were millions of Red Sox fans, and every one of them is sure that the Red Sox won in ’04 because of something they did.

Which brings me to the most interesting thing about baseball superstitions. We do so many of them, with absolutely no reason to believe they actually work.

I understand the reason we, as fans, do these things. We don’t have a bat or glove in our hands. We aren’t calling the plays. We’re just sitting back and watching. That’s exasperating. How can we be expected to just sit there and do nothing? We HAVE to do SOMETHING. So, we come up with things. Wear a lucky shirt. Or eat the same breakfast on game day.

But, like I said, we have no reason to be sure these things work. But we do them anyway. People wear rally caps to help the team score runs. I’ve even had people in the stands yell at others to put on a rally cap. But, don’t people put on rally caps every time a team gets behind? Do they rally every time? Didn’t think so. So, why do we continue to assume the caps are helping? Again, I’m not immune to this. I didn’t wear my unlucky Bruins jersey last night because the Bruins are 1-2 in games that I’ve worn it. So, they did win a game, despite me shoving the jersey in their face. (Although, they only won because they scored two goals right after I took the jersey off.)

But, we keep at it. The Sox scored a run when I was I the bathroom, so I’ll watch the rest of the game from the bathroom. Ignoring all the runs the Sox have scored in their history when I wasn’t in the bathroom. I’m going to talk about the potential no-hitter that the other team is throwing, because that will break it up. Ignoring the fact that no-hitters are rare because most of them are broken up at some point. I wasn’t talking about all of them. But, it makes us feel better. We’re not sitting idly by. We’re helping. We’re doing our part. No matter how crazy it is to think it’s helping.

What are some superstitious things you’ve done to help your team?

I Scored!

September 21, 2000

I hate boring games where nothing happens. Don’t you? Thankfully this certainly doesn’t look like one of them.

It really looked like two different games. The first three innings, and then the last six. Just look at those first three. Arrojo couldn’t get out of the first inning, giving up seven runs. Just flat out depressing. But at least the Red Sox came back and got two runs in the bottom of the first to at least keep a little hope alive. That hope was more than alive when the Sox put up six of their own in the third inning.

So there the game sits, 8-7 after three innings. Can anyone say “slugfest?” But, then there’s that final score of 9-8. So, 15 runs in three innings, and then two runs in the next six. Nice job by both bullpens. The Sox certainly used plenty of pitchers to get through their innings. But, for 8.1 innings, they only gave up one run.

Who swung the big bat for the Sox? Besides just about everyone? Well, everyone in the top of the order at least. I have to give the nod to Troy O’Leary. Not only did he drive in four runs, but they were four pretty important runs. He drove in the second run of the first inning with two outs, making sure they didn’t squander a chance to get back in it. Then, he followed that with a 3-run bomb in the third to tie the game. What a performance.

The goat of the day? Amazingly enough, I’m going with Brian Daubach. He followed O’Leary in the order that day. But, none of the magic was left over by the time he got to the plate. He was the only person on the Sox who came to the plate that day and didn’t get a hit. That’s just not going to do it. I’m also going to have to give a special goat award to Arrojo. It doesn’t show up on the scan, but here’s how his first inning went. Strikeout-groundout to get two quick outs. Then it went BB-BB-BB-2B-2B-BB-S. What on earth happened?

But, the Sox were able to overcome that debacle of an inning. They didn’t give up, and exploded on their own. A great win.

And the scorecard shows how it happened.

From the Pedro Binder

2001 Stadium Club Capture the Action

I loved Stadium Club. I know I’m not alone in that feeling. To me, they just made cards the way they should be made. They focus in the picture, and not the noise around it. Even on an insert set like this one, they still keep the picture front and center.

The Stadium Club logo and player name are tucked onto a colored border on the bottom. In fact, if you look closely enough, you realize that it’s not even a colored border. The red is translucent, so you can see what’s going on behind it. Even when Stadium Club is forced to obscure the picture, they make sure they don’t really do it. The name of the set is stuck out of the way at the top. It’s not scrawled in gold foil across the middle of the card. It’s not printed four times in various sizes all around the card. It’s just there, so you know which set it’s from. They put it inside a pennant because, hey, it’s baseball. Like the red on the bottom, the pennant feature allows as much of the picture to be seen as possible. Almost the entire top can be full bleed. Fantastic.

My only slight problem is with the picture selection. For a set named “Capture the Action” there’s not a lot of action in the shot. Sure, Pedro’s in the middle of his delivery, but the shot doesn’t scream movement to me. Pedro’s base card in both the 1999 and 2000 Stadium Club sets both suggest more “action” to me than this one, even though they are just shots of different points in his delivery. I get that there aren’t a lot of times a pitcher is truly active. He’s not leaping to make a catch, or avoiding a runner as he turns a double play. But, I think they could have done slightly better with this one.

If that’s my only complaint, it must be a good card.

Lester’s Lacking Lately

I know it. You know it. Jon Lester knows it. His start last night was the exact opposite of the start the Red Sox needed from him. The bigger question, as always, is what that bad start means.

Maybe he got caught in a buzz saw. After all, the Rays had managed to put up some runs the night before. Maybe he just couldn’t feel it last night. Maybe he’s hurt. Maybe he just choked. Maybe it’s all of those things. Maybe it’s just the sort of thing you should expect from an ace that’s not Pedro Martinez.

Lester currently sits at 6-3. Project it out, and you’re looking somewhere around 14-16 wins. That’s about where he’s been his whole career. Sure it’s maddening that he started 6-0, and has been 0-3 since. But, with all the people screaming about Jose Iglesias’s small sample size, everyone seems ready to jump on Lester for five mediocre starts. Lester has also hit a stretch where the teams he’s facing are better than not. Sure, an ace is supposed to beat the good teams. But, he’s not necessarily supposed to dominate them. He’s supposed to dominate the weaker teams to offset his numbers from the better teams. It’s just the way it works.

Are we just still unsure of Lester? It amazes me when the guy gives up a run in the first inning, Twitter goes crazy. “There he goes again!” “Why is he so inconsistent?” So, now the guy’s not allowed to give up a run? I’ve said it before. I’ll take it as a very good sign that people are so upset over giving up a run. It must mean he’s pretty good.

So, I seem to say this a lot, but I’m not going to get crazy over a little slump. Lester may have to work out some mechanical problems he has at the moment. But, he’s obviously shown he’s capable of doing just that. He’s shown that recently.

When does Lester get the benefit of the doubt?

Collecting the Sox: Office Supplies

You work in an office. All day long, you sit at your desk computing, or drawing, or reconfiguring data. Your desk and cubicle is where you spend most of your waking hours. You certainly need that space to reflect your love and adoration of the Red Sox. But, how do you do that? Can you cover your desk with action figures? Jars of salsa? Maybe not. So, how do you promote your favorite team, while keeping that professional appearance?

Office Supplies.

Sure, you could use Red Sox pens or pencils at your desk. That would be a nice start. But, there are so many other places you can go with it. What about a pencil holder? You can either get one specifically made for the purpose, or convert another Red Sox item like a mug or ice cream carton. How about a mouse pad? Those are starting to go the way of bookshelves. But, while they’re around, those can have a Red Sox flair to them too. Need a place on your desk to put a picture of your family? Might as well use a Red Sox picture frame.

The point is, there are any number of things you can get for your desk that will add to your Red Sox collection. Like any good collectable, they have variety both in look and price points. You can try and collect as many different mouse pads as you can. Or, you can see how close to a complete desk you can get. Can you find a mouse pad, stapler, pencil holder, clock, frame, and on and on. You can try and focus on a favorite player. Or, pick one of the championship seasons and work with those.

Whether it’s a home office, or an office office, there are plenty of Red Sox collectables out there that can spruce up a workspace.

Which Red Sox items do you have on your desk? 

Is Striking Out a Bad Thing?

The Red Sox currently have a few high strikeout guys. That has caused quite a bit of angst in the Nation. Especially when one of them strikes out in a key situation.

“Get the bat on the ball!”

The Sox broadcasters like to complain about strikeouts because they “don’t move the runners along” in contrast to some opinions that a strikeout is “just another out.” That theory states that the damage the hitters do when they don’t strike out makes it worth putting up with the frequent K’s.

So, which is it? If you have two men on base with one out, is Mike Napoli someone you want at the plate?

Should Napoli adjust himself when he’s at the plate to avoid the strikeout? Should he go all Ty Cobb, choke up, separate his hands, and slap at the ball so he puts it in play? The tricky question is when Napoli should do that. If there’s a runner on first with one out? Bases loaded with no outs? That’s a big question because if you’re having Napoli do that, you’re almost giving up on getting a hit. Sure, if he slaps a grounder it might squeak through, but I wouldn’t count on it. So, we need to be willing to take a sure out and advance a runner just to avoid the chance of striking out. How many times does that really happen? And, in how many of those times is advancing the runner ALL you’re really wanting? Runner on third with none out in the bottom of the ninth in a tie game? Isn’t that it? And, really, since the infield is probably playing in at that point, not sure it’s a great idea then. So, all these people complaining must be talking about other situations. Like, runner on second trailing by a run with none out in the seventh. In that case, a ground ball to second would be better than a K. But, a base hit would be better than either of them, right? So, let’s look at that situation. Let’s use some numbers from Mike Napoli’s 2012 season. A normal 2012 Napoli struck out 30% of the time. So, let’s assume he’d strikeout 30% of the time with a guy at second and none out. But, using the same 2012 stats, he’d get a hit 20% of the time. And, he’d get a walk 13% of the time. The other 34% of the time he makes another kind of out. By sheer luck, some percentage of those would be productive, right? Half of them? A third? Let’s go with a third, just to pick a number.

So, to recap, a regular 2012 Mike Napoli at-bat with a runner on second would strike out 30% of the time. So, 30% of the time it would have been better to have just slapped the ball to second to get the runner to third. But, you’d be limiting yourself. After all, on his own Napoli would do something at least that good 44% of the time. And that’s the number that sticks out to me. You can have Napoli give himself up, and ground out to second. But, almost as often as not, that would be the wrong call. And, sometimes a really wrong call. After all, 5% of the time, Napoli would homer.

People who complain about strikeouts also fall into the same trap as people who like the sacrifice bunt. (After all, I suppose, it’s really the same maneuver.) Moving the runner over is a good thing. After all, it’s easier to score from third than it is from second. That’s true, depending on your definition of “easier.” There are certainly more way to score from third. A sac fly, or a wild pitch for instance. But, are we basing a strategy upon the pitcher throwing a wild pitch to the next batter? Does that make sense? Even the sac fly. Once we get Napoli to ground out to second, we now need the guy after him to hit a deep flyball. So, now we’re basically asking two straight guys to do their best to try to make an out. Does that seem weird to anyone else? What if we just told Napoli to take his rips? He may get a hit. Even a home run. That’s way better than simply moving the runner along. Of course, he may strike out. But, then maybe the next guy will get a hit. If the guy after him gets a hit, the guy scores from second anyway. So, the Sox didn’t lose anything from letting Napoli loose. What if Napoli slaps the ball to second, moving the guy to third and the next guy singles? He would have scored from second anyway. So, you just wasted Napoli. Why would you do that?

What it comes down to is, yes, a strikeout is bad. In a single situation, it looks really bad. But, overall it’s worth the chance since the alternative is so much more.

If you play for one run, that’s usually all you get.

From the Pedro Binder

2001 Topps League Leaders (Strikeouts)

I love the idea of this card. I can see it being an absolute slam dunk in the design meetings.

Card companies know where their bread is buttered. They know that star cards drive the set, so they need to get as many of them in the set as possible. League Leaders cards are an easy way to accomplish that. But, there are only so many cards in a set. So, rather than give each league leader a whole other card in the set, they usually combine them. Either the leader from each league, or the top finishers from each league. The appeal is obvious. With just one card Topps can have both a Pedro card, and a Randy Johnson card. Instant appeal to two different groups of collectors. But, what if the pairings aren’t so wonderful? What if, like last time, Pedro finished first, and Roger Clemens finished second. Now they have to put Pedro and Roger on the same card. I want very little to do with a Roger Clemens card with the Yankees. Similarly, a Yankees fan would probably spit on a Pedro card. Now, instead of appealing to two different groups, you’ve driven away all the groups. In 2001, Topps had a great solution. Put one league on the front, and the other on the back. Then, you can have both groups going after the card again. I look at this card, and all I see is Pedro. Sitting in my binder, I don’t know if the other side has Randy Johnson or Roger Clemens. It’s just a Pedro card. Perfect!

Except for one thing.

There’s a whole bunch of mumbo jumbo that is usually hidden on the back of the card. Unfortunately, that means it’s right on the front of my Pedro card. There’s the card number stuck in the corner. Actually, they did a pretty good job of incorporating that into the design. But, it’s still right there looking at me. There are also some logos, for Topps, MLB, and the MLBPA. Ick. Worst of all is the fine print. Bleh. I don’t need copyright information cluttering up my Pedro card.

So, while this is a great concept, I can’t endorse it. This might be one of the few times I could get behind an intentional variation. What if Topps made half the cards with Johnson on the front and half with Pedro on the front? Then, maybe, I could find a clean Pedro card. Because this way, it just looks second fiddle.

No matter how well Topps did to try and hide it.