Sunday, September 30, 2012

What Do I Need From the Media?

There was a paragraph in the book Fenway 1912 that caught my attention when I was reading it recently. It was about the media. It made a comment about the media coverage of the Red Sox during the 1912 season. The game recaps tended to be elaborate with flowing details about the color of the grass and the brightness of the sun. Since there weren’t televisions, or even many photographs, the newspaper accounts were the only way people who weren’t at the game had any clue what was going on. Of the millions of people interested in the team, only 35,000 knew what the player looked like that day. Or how the field looked. So, the newspapers had to write novels for their recaps. “The bowlegged shortstop plowed through the muddy terrain in an all out attempt to corral the squirting grounder.” They couldn’t say that Speaker scored on a single, and leave it at that. Nobody knew if it was a close play. Or did the sun cause problems. It made me realize that we don’t need the media to do that for us today. I know that Dustin Pedroia is short. I know that Ellsbury runs like the wind. I don’t need the game recap to tell me that. So, that begged the obvious question. What do I need the media for?

I need basic information. I don’t always see, or listen to, every inning of every Sox game. I don’t see any games of other teams not playing the Sox. So, I need the media to report the winners, losers, and scores, that sort of thing. Maybe an important highlight. Basically, the sort of thing you’d see in an AP article. Those are my bare minimums.

I like in-depth articles too. Feature articles in magazines. A well-written four-page story on Jon Lester would be very nice. One of those newspaper articles that takes up most of the page on Sunday. I would enjoy reading those.

Off the top of my head, that’s probably it. Although, I realize I just eliminated the beat writer. Is that really the case? Do I need anything they provide? I’m not sure I do. I don’t need player quotes following a game. They’re never anything all that earth shattering anyway. Do I need to see a quote from Pedroia after a loss saying they needed to get more key hits? That’s just fluff. I don’t need to know what a players thinks before a game. More fluff.

So, is that it? Am I down to the AP reporter, and Tom Verducci? Is that all I need?

I guess I liked the manager interviews that the EEIdiots had. Well, at least I liked them until everyone was just asking Bobby V whether he was talking to his assistant batboy. But, it boils down to access. I need the media to be there to talk to people that I can’t talk to, and relay that to me. The important stuff. Not the cliché stuff. Not the “I have one more inch to fill in my column, so a quite from Salty on something will let me do less writing.” This is really the trickiest area. Basically, reporters have shown that they can’t do it. Not even a little. Have you heard a press conference? Is there one question that is asked that is even remotely relevant? I need someone there to try…but I’ll need a big filter on my end.

OK. So, the AP, Tom Verducci, and one other reporter. That’s it.

Get rid of the rest of them.

Friday, September 28, 2012

Happy Steel Day!

Sorry, Jacoby, I said “steel” not “steal.”

Today, people across the country celebrate the wonderful building material that is steel. Why do we care about that here at this blog? Well, if it weren’t for steel, there might not be a Section 36.

After all, Section 36 is located in everyone’s favorite steel structure, Fenway Park. Steel really helped make Fenway what it is today.


Thanks to steel, spans between supports are shorter than they would have been. That means fewer obstructed views. Can you imagine Fenway with even more obstructed views? Would it have lasted 100 years if that were the case? I doubt it.

Some of that advantage you can see when you look at the steel trusses supporting the stadium. It’s easy to imagine that wooden planks would not have been able to span quite so far between columns. But, there’s even steel hidden in the concrete. The steel reinforced concrete also helps increase the spans between supports. That was a pretty new concept in concrete when Fenway was built. They were using concrete when the Egyptians built the pyramids. But, adding steel reinforcing was a concept only decades old when Fenway was built. It was a lucky break that the technology was used in the park, helping it to survive.

It was also pretty important back in the day that steel and concrete was much more fireproof than wooden bleachers. Fires that wiped out wooden seating would leave the steel and concrete alone for us to use today.

Without the wonder of steel, Fenway Park would be a much different place, if it were even a place at all.

Thank You Steel!

Wednesday, September 26, 2012

Lords Of Olympus Wantlist

Anyone have any old Allen & Ginter collecting dust?

I’ve decided that it would be nice to complete the Lords of Olympus mini insert set from the 2010 A&G set. Does anyone have any of these lying around that they don’t know what to do with?

I have the Hera already, but would be willing to trade for any of the others.

Let me know!

Monday, September 24, 2012

Why Can’t I Complain About Blown Calls?

It happens every time a blown call decides a game. The pundits all say the same thing. You can’t complain about the umpires. You can’t whine about the officials. You can’t worry about the referees. You just have to do your job, and make plays when you need to. After all, it’s your fault that you were in a position where a bad call hurt you. I always have the same response.


How does a player “make plays” when the people calling the game don’t let those plays stand. If I’m a pitcher, and I make that perfect pitch on the black, at the knees, and it’s called a ball, didn’t I make the play? What was I supposed to do to overcome that umpire error? If I’m a cornerback, and make a stop on a huge second and long, but the official calls me for a phantom hold, didn’t I make the play? What was I supposed to do in order to not be in the position to let a bad call hurt me?

Apparently, I’m just supposed to make every play perfectly all game long? Why is the player expected to be perfect, in order to compensate for an umpire that clearly isn’t? Shouldn’t the people calling the games be under the same scrutiny? If a shortstop makes an error to lose a game, he blew it himself. If an umpire makes an error to lose a game, the team should have somehow compensated for the error?

This is another example of people assuming you can play well just by wanting to play well. Where did this theory come from?

So, as a fan especially, can’t I complain that the umpire cost my team a game as much as the third baseman did? Can I say that the two teams were evenly matched, so the hometown calls really made the difference? Why is it ok to say my fist baseman cost the game, but not the first base umpire?

Why can’t we admit that the people calling the game are part of the game? Why can’t we insist that the games be called correctly? Why can’t we demand a way to get that part of the game right every time?

Why do we just have to overcome their mistakes?

Sunday, September 23, 2012

Collecting the Sox: Mini Helmets

So, I have another collecting dilemma. Like many people, I enjoy ice cream. I enjoy it even more when it’s served in a collectable Red Sox mini helmet. Really, who wouldn’t? So, when I get a chance I like to get myself a little Red Sox sundae. Of course, I always save the collectable helmet when I’m done. But, here’s the problem. What exactly do I do with all these helmets?

The helmets themselves are great. They look nice on a shelf. They’re small enough that they don’t take up a lot of space in the collection…on their own. Some of them come in different styles. In 1999, for instance, the ones from Fenway had the All-Star game logo on the front. So, there’s even some variety to the collection. I like that. Plus, there’s a definite tie-in to the Red Sox. Players wear helmets or hats during the game. Somehow that makes them a more authentic collectable than, say, a box of cereal or a pencil. This is a baseball item.

But, over the years, I’ve picked up a small pile of these helmets. I’m guessing I probably have 20-25 of them at the moment. They are currently stacked inside each other in a single stack. That is definitely not optimizing their display capabilities.

But, how would they be optimized?

I could stack them in a pyramid. That might add some visual interest, but isn’t really all that clever. I could scatter them all over the place, so everywhere you turn, you’d be looking at a helmet. That might get a little creepy! When I was lamenting about my stack of souvenir cups, I tossed out the idea of building a coffee table out of the cups. Maybe I could use the helmets to ring the top of a cup table? I could hang them from the ceiling in a giant helmet mobile. I could glue them to a shirt to make a mini-helmet suit of armor. There are so many options.

What’re some other ideas?

Friday, September 21, 2012

I'll take 1988 For the Win!

Jim, the author of The Phillies Room has a bit of a problem. (I was going to insert a crack about the 2012 Phillies here, but really I'm in no position.) Every year he creates his own set of custom cards, borrowing a previous design from Topps. (He does a great job at it, by the way.) It appears that the time has come for him to select the design for the 2013 set, and he can't decide. He wants help. Like any smart blog writer, he realized that the best way to get people to help is by offering them something in return. So, Jim's holding a contest. Head over to see the actual rules, but basically if you go and vote, you can be entered. Now, I'm not usually one to pimp a contest here. But, this one gave me a chance to talk about baseball cards. So, I'm making an exception. (Plus, it's Friday, and I have no other ideas!)

He has narrowed it down to four choices. 1971, 1973, 1985, and 1988. What do I think?

The 1971 has never excited me. I know there are plenty of people out there who love this "classic" set. Frankly, there's just too much black for me to get very excited about it. Bleh.

The same really goes for the 1973. I like the funky picture of the position in the corner. But, otherwise it's a white card with some text. It doesn't happen to do much for me.

The 1985 had a lot of detail to it. the team name is there at a funny artsy angle. It has the team logo to add some pop. It's really a great design for a card. Clearly the best option...

Except for the 1988. For some reason, I've always been a sucker for the floating details. I love that the player name looks like a ribbon wrapped around the photo. The team name floating on the top is just fabulous. It allows the picture to be as big as possible. All the design does is obscure some of the unneeded parts. If you see the four mock-ups on The Phillies Room, that's obvious. The size of the picture just jumps at you. Perfection. (As a side benefit, I'm real excited at making Jim have to get the player's head to obscure some of the team name. That can't be fun!)

The 1988 design is my clear choice. Do you agree? Head over to The Phillies Room and vote. (Jim also has a strange affinity for dinging noises, so go ahead and "like" his Facebook page too.)

(Only, of course, if you already like Section 36.)

Wednesday, September 19, 2012

Happy International Talk Like a Pirate Day!

Photo By Bryanne

Following the tradition of made-up holidays like Secretaries Day, and Valentine’s Day, today brings us to International Talk Like a Pirate Day! But, how are we supposed to talk like a Pirate, matey? Well, thankfully, the Red Sox have a couple former Pirates on their roster who might be able to help us. Savvy?

The one that jumps right to mind is super-sub Pedro Ciriaco. He played in 31 games for the Pirates during the 2010 and 2011 seasons.

Or, from the bullpen, former Pirate Ross Ohlendorf tends to the seven seas. Yo Ho Ohlendorf was a teammate of Pirate Pedro for two years before jumping ship to the Sox. You don’t see a lot of Princeton grads turn into Pirates. I wonder if that was cause for conflict.

There have been other notable Pirates to come to the Sox over the years. One came by way of a mutiny. Jason Bay came over to the Sox in a deadline deal involving Manny Ramirez. Bay the Bad’s new crew was happy to have him aboard.

Of course, possibly the most famous former Pirate to put on the Red Sox retired before the beginning of the season. Tim Wakefield starred for the Pirates before coming to the Sox. If there were ever a buried treasure left by Pirates, Tim the Terrible was it. From walking the plank, to collecting two rings. Not a bad recovery.

Yup. I deserve to be marooned on a desert island for writing that.


Monday, September 17, 2012

How Do You Handle a Collection that’s Impossible to Complete?

What’s a collector to do? What happens if you’d like to start a collection, but you know right from the start that you’ll never complete it? Is that too much to even bother starting?

I’m currently working on completing one set, the 1975 Topps. The set, obviously, has several good qualities. But, one of the ones that appealed to me most was that it had a lot of stars, without any white whales. There was no Nolan Ryan rookie that was out of my price range. In fact, I already had a low-grade copy of the Brett rookie, making it even easier. Just the Yount rookie was out there. With the access from the internet, even that card isn’t all that scary. So, I felt comfortable working on the set. If there was a Hank Aaron rookie in the set, I doubt I would have even started it.

I’m not really taking about collections that are “daunting” either. My goal of getting every Topps produced Red Sox base card is extreme. I doubt I’d ever finish it. But…I could. There’s nothing really stopping me. Offhand, I can’t think of a card that would cost me $100, if I’m not worried about condition. It’s just a matter of putting in the time to get it done.

But, what if I went deeper back in time? Say, I decide I want to collect the 1939 Playball Red Sox team set. Can I even begin that quest knowing that the Ted Williams will never be in my collection? Can I go after a set knowing that even if it’s torn in half, the Williams is too rich for my blood?

I know that just about every player collector has a similar problem. With all of the 1/1 cards being produced, the chances of getting every card of a player is zero. But, you could create a wantlist for yourself that avoided the issue. Decide you want all the base cards of Jacoby Ellsbury. Or, you’d like to add at least one 1/1 card of Dustin Pedroia. But, what if the checklist is already made for you? I know which Red Sox cards are in the 1915 Sporting News set. I know that there will always be a big empty space in my binder where the Babe Ruth rookie should be. There’s just no way around it. Will that bother me every time I turn to that page? If I fill it in with a reprint version, will that help? I don’t know.

So, what’s your remedy? Do reprints make you just as happy? Do you avoid sets with impossible cards? Do you go with the “best I can” approach, and be happy with some holes?

How do you get an impossible collection to work for you?

Sunday, September 16, 2012

Red Sox 1-36: 13 is for…

13 extra-inning HR in Ted Williams career

Wow. That’s a lot of home runs in extra innings. In fact, it’s the most extra-inning home runs in Red Sox history. For comparison, David Ortiz, the greatest clutch hitter in Red Sox history, has 8 extra-inning home runs in his career. (At least going into this year. Did he get any yet?) I guess you can be clutch without hitting home runs in extra innings.

Which, I suppose, leads to a question. Is hitting an extra-inning home run clutch? Is hitting a lot of them impressive? I have no idea. Entering 2012, David Ortiz had 378 career home runs. So, those 8 extra inning bombs represented 2.1% of all his home runs. Ted’s 13 represent 2.5% of his lifetime 521. 2.5 is higher than 2.1. So? Don’t ask me.

Hitting an extra inning home run is also a function of opportunity. After all, you can’t hit a home run in extra innings unless you get an at-bat in extra innings. A better question would be, in how many of Ted’s extra-inning at-bats did he homer?

The bottom line, though, is that hitting a home run in extra innings is better than striking out in extra innings. It’s even better than hitting a single in extra innings, no matter what selfish Ichiro and his fans tell us. So, if you’ve done a good thing more often than anyone else in Red Sox history, that’s pretty cool.

13 is for thirteen extra-inning HR in Ted Williams career

Friday, September 14, 2012

Do. Or Do Not. There is no Try.

This time of year, with a team like the 2012 Red Sox, you get a lot of “what-ifs” and complaints. Why did they have such a poor record? What could they have done to win more games? It seems to make people feel better if they can find one single problem that can be fixed. It’s easier, if going into an offseason you only have one thing to do. I get that. I look for reasons too. There’s one reason I can’t wrap my arms around, though. The ideas that they should have “played better.”

That was a big media reason a month ago. Lester and Beckett had poor records. If they had had winning records, the Sox would have led the division. I’m not sure why an answer of “play better” is possible. Shouldn’t that apply to every player ever? If every member of the Royals had played better, the team would be in the playoffs. What’s your point? If Lester had struck out every batter he faced, the Sox would be in the playoffs. If Gonzalez had hit 136 home runs, the Sox would be in the playoffs. Why don’t we ask for that? Why don’t we ask why Aaron Cook didn’t win 20 games? Why didn’t he play better?

I’ve always been more of a “you are what your are” sort. Or, even “you were what you were.” Jacoby Ellsbury is a good player. Daniel Nava is not as good. I can’t say to Nava, “Jacoby’s out. Play better.” If I could, why would I bother signing Jacoby in the first place? Just sign some minor leaguers and tell them to play better. Obviously, that would be crazy.

So, don’t tell me that players should have just played better. Don’t tell me that Lester needed to walk fewer people. Don’t tell me that Josh Beckett needed to shift his priorities. (As a side note, that one really bugged me. Remember in 2004 when A-Rod said he was a better player because he was at the gym while other guys were driving their kids to school? Remember when “dirt dog” Trot Nixon completely trashed him? Being a good father did not mean he wasn’t a good ballplayer? What happened to that mentality?) The players are what they are.

I also don’t buy the “try harder” command. It’s a little variation on the “play better” one. People like this one because it leaves open the possibility that there is room for improvement just by trying. But, these are major league ballplayers. You can’t get to that level without some wiring in you that tells you to try. Nobody is the best in the world at something without giving all they can. It may not be obvious to the naked eye, but it’s there. Now, if you want to talk about someone like Josh Hamilton wasting all his talent by using drugs, that’s another issue. Although, I still doubt the “try harder” command would have worked.

Why do people think it’s so easy to just do things better?

Wednesday, September 12, 2012

Who’s the Bigger EEIdiot?

Sometimes, it’s just hard to know for sure.

Yesterday, a couple radio hosts were talking about a poll question their station had. The question was something like, “Even though the Sox are out if it, do you have any interest in the Yankees series since the Sox have a chance to be a spoiler?” It’s a fair question. Is the role of “spoiler” even close to the role of “contender?” No. Of course not. But, there’s a role there that could add interest to a series. That’s not the part that was weird. What was weird is when they were discussing the current results.

They mentioned with surprise that some people were texting answers along the lines of, “I can’t stand this team. I’m not watching any more games this year, no matter what.” The fact that the hosts were “surprised” at this response made me wonder. Who was the bigger EEIdiot?

Was it the hosts? Were they really surprised that everyone didn’t fall lockstep behind them when they ran all the talented players out of town? Is this like when they tell people whether to boo, or not boo, a returning star at Fenway, and then act amazed everyone didn’t listen to them? Is it them being out of touch like they were when Manny wasn’t traded and received that huge ovation when he was inserted into a game as a pinch hitter? Are they actually surprised that some people want to see talented players on the field? Are they actually surprised that clubhouse antics don’t matter when we’re trying to watch a team win? Are they blinded by their own hype?

Or is it the callers and poll voters? Are they hypocrites? Have they been screaming all year to blow it up, but are now complaining because the team is no good? Have they been wanting nothing to do with talented, although bland, stars, but now don’t want to see the personalities lose? Is running out a ground ball to first not actually the key to watching games? Did they honestly think they could have it both ways? Did they really think “flexibility” is the same as “ability?”

So, I can’t decide what those poll answers were trying to tell us. Was it the hosts, or the callers?

Who are the bigger EEIdiots?

Monday, September 10, 2012

Mail Day

There are many reasons why I enjoy blogging, and the rest of the blogging community. Trades like the one I just completed with BA Benny have to be at the top of the list though. As you may remember, I had some hits that I didn't want. Not that they were bad cards, they just weren't Red Sox cards. two of them were especially troublesome for me. Yankees relics. It's bad enough to have Yankees cards. But, to have actual pieces of a Yankees uniform in my house just goes over the top. Thankfully, I was able to ship them out of my sight with very little effort. Take a look at some of what came my way.

That's right. For the pleasure of ridding myself of Yankees, I received two relics of David Ortiz. If that's not a win-win, I don't know what is. But, that's really the whole point. One man's trash really is another's treasure sometimes.

The rest of the cards were more than welcome additions as well. I have been buying more sets this year than packs. So, the inserts have escaped me for the most part. It was nice to be able to add a couple of them to my collection.

So, a big thanks goes out to BA Benny's Baseball Card Buffet!

Saturday, September 8, 2012

Fenway 1912, By Glenn Stout

2012 marks the 100th anniversary of Fenway Park. This book brings us back those 100 years to experience the park when the grass was still growing, and the paint wasn’t quite dry. It retells the magical 1912 Red Sox season, while always bringing it back to the park itself. How did the construction happen? What did the crowds mean for the structure? What changes needed to be made to the original design? Did the home field help the Red Sox win the World Series in 1912?

Simply put, this was an amazing book. The tales from the 1912 season would have been enough on their own. To see how a team went through its season day by day was eye opening. Add in the influence from the new home park, and the book just took off. Stout does a wonderful job of turning what limited historical information there is into a flowing storyline. It was like being in a time machine watching that first season develop. I loved hearing about all the decisions and changes made to Fenway Park, even during that first year. From Duffy’s Cliff, to the grandstand seats, every aspect of the park is covered in wonderful detail. It was easy to see why it became so important to so many people. This book makes it clear that not much of the park has remained since that first season. But, somehow, nothing has really changed. I can’t imagine a Red Sox fan that wouldn’t enjoy this book.

Rating: 4 bases

Thursday, September 6, 2012

Thank Goodness for Bobby V

Once again, I have to apologize at the start of a post. There’s just too much going on in my head right now to organize things the way I’d like to. So, if this ends up as a random collection of outbursts…oops.

Bobby V has gotten himself into a little media-created hot water again. He fulfilled the dreams of many Red Sox fans by saying he’d like to bop a talk radio host. Wouldn’t we all? Oddly, he’s been roundly criticized for this “threat.” Wait. Maybe that’s not all that odd. He’s being criticized in the media for an attack on the media. Now it makes sense. Otherwise, I was stumped. When Valentine made his joke a while ago with Will Middlebrooks, Curt Schilling went on the radio and blasted Bobby. He said that if Bobby had said that to him, he’d have punched him. This was used as proof that Bobby was in the wrong. Now, when Bobby wants to smack a radio host, shouldn’t it be proof that the media is in the wrong? Silly me.

I admit, I was confused by the amount of media backlash on Valentine for a while. If I remember correctly, he was pretty well supported by the media when he started out. Then I remembered. They were excited by the storyline. They touted that he’d stir things up, and say anything. In other words, they were simply setting the scene for them to invent stuff. They were telling us right up front. “This guy is good theater. He’s going to be crazy.” They were giving themselves a license to print whatever they want. Now, they’re taking advantage of all that front work.

In other news, the incredible support of Quotes Pedroia is continuing. I heard a caller to a station today suggest that he was a poison, and needed to go. That would seem to follow the media’s own guidelines. No matter the talent, if they’re poison, ship them out. But, oh no. That rule doesn’t apply if you give the media members great one-liners like “laser show.” They jumped right to his defense. After all, they said, he'll learn from this and should grow as a person from all the problems he’s caused this season. Just like they all said Beckett would grow from the problems they claimed he caused last season? Then, they dropped the hammer. Look at how he’s playing, they said. It shows a lot about his character that he’s performing so well even though the Sox are out of the playoffs. It’s a true leader that does well when the games are so meaningless. Huh? What? Haven’t they been screaming that Gonzalez was soft because he didn’t produce when it counted? He only hits home rune when they don’t matter? Wasn’t that his lone fault? I’m confused by the reversal. What’s different between Beckett, Gonzalez, and Quotes? Oh right. Beckett and Gonzalez didn’t make their jobs easier. That’s why they wouldn’t grow from their experiences, or why they weren’t leaders when they produced only when it didn’t matter.

It’s all so obvious.

Tuesday, September 4, 2012

And The Winner is…

First, let me offer a hearty thanks to everyone who participated in this contest. Especially for our three finalists, Bryanne, Alexis, and Steve. I also want to remind everyone that in this contest, there are no losers. Well, except for Steve.

With that out of the way, let me officially announce that the winner of the August contest is Bryanne! Congratulations!

Bryanne is a frequent blog contributor and contest participant. All that hard work finally paid off.

So, if you see Bryanne around town, offer her your warmest and most heart-felt congratulations.

Way to go Bryanne!

Sunday, September 2, 2012

I Scored!

April 15, 2001

Here we go. Red Sox vs. Yankees! This has to be a good game.

Let’s go right to the pitcher’s box to see the fantastic match-up we have in store for us. Hideo Nomo got the nod for the Sox. Slightly underwhelming. But, I suppose. It looks like he pitched just fine. Got the quality start out of it. “El Guapo” made an appearance in relief, along with old friend Derek Lowe. Not a bad collection of pitchers. It’s no Pedro game, but it’ll do.

What about the line-up? It’s early 2001, so Nomar is out recovering from wrist surgery. But, new Hero Manny Ramirez is in the clean-up spot. It had been just over a week since he thrilled us with a 3-run homer on the first pitch he saw in Fenway as a Red Sox. He had been every bit as advertised. In reality, the line-up looks pretty solid, even without Nomar.

The Sox started with a very bizarre inning. Look at those entries. An error, a single, fielder’s choice, hit-by-pitch, fielder’s choice, fielder’s choice. Umm…is that a rally?

You’ll notice that Jimy Williams threw a curveball at me in the eighth. Imagine that, Jimy Williams did something I didn’t expect. He had Brian Daubach pinch-hit for Shea Hillenbrand and Trot Nixon pinch-hit for Mike Lansing. Nothing too odd about that. Andy Pettitte started the game for the Yankees, so the lefties didn’t start. But, Pettitte was out of the game by then. The only issue, of course, is that Dauber isn’t a third baseman, and Trot Nixon isn’t a shortstop. So, how was Jimy going to fix things? When I saw Grebeck come into the field to start the ninth, I assumed he replaced Nixon. But, no. Look what Jimy did. He left Nixon in, and took out Bichette instead. It’s practically a double switch. The really odd part was the Bichette was scheduled to bat fourth in the eighth. So, it was a good chance that Grebeck would bat instead of Bichette. Hmm. Look at the rest of the moves that inning. Lewis went from center to left. Offerman went from first to second. Merloni went from second to third. That let Dauber stay at first. Phew.

The hero of the game for the Red Sox? I like Crazy Carl Everett. Three hits, and two runs scored, along with his RBI. Not a bad stat line for Everett. The goat? I’m going to give it to the seven spot in the order. Hillenbrand and Daubach combined to go 1-5, didn’t score, and didn’t drive anyone in.

In the end, it didn’t matter. The Sox score a bunch late, and survived Jimy’s line-up shuffling. They took down the Yankees, and that’s always a good thing.

And the scorecard shows how it happened.

What people are reading this week