Blue Jays - 220 010 001 - 6 9 0 Red Sox - 000 000 001 - 1 9 1Yet another desultory night at Fenway - as frustrating as Thursday night as exhilarating - as Josh Beckett allowed two singles, two doubles, one triple, two walks, and four runs to the first 12 Toronto batters. The Red Sox had a few minor scoring opportunities, but did not cross the plate until the final inning.
Beckett (6-7-5-3-7, 96) gave up a triple to Cody Rasmus, the second batter of the game. Rasmus tried to score on Edward Encarnacion's grounder to Will Middlebrooks at third, but replays (according to what I heard on the radio) showed that he was blocked and tagged, and never touched the plate. If home plate umpire Sam Holbrook had not blown the call, the Jays would have had a man on first and two outs rather than one out, a man on first, and a 1-0 lead. ... Rasmus doubled in two runs in the second.
In his 16 first innings this year, Beckett has allowed 19 earned runs for a 10.69 ERA.
Laffey (7-8-0-0-4, 88) scattered eight singles, and Darren Oliver and Casey Janssen mopped up.
In the third, singles from Mike Aviles and Jacoby Ellsbury gave the Red Sox men at first and second with one out. But both Carl Crawford and Dustin Pedroia flew out to right.
A one-out single in the fourth was erased on a double play. A leadoff fifth-inning single was stranded at second, and a one-out hit in the sixth could not advance.
Boston's seventh began with singles from Middlebrooks (2-for-4) and Kelly Shoppach (2-for-3). But Aviles struck out looking, Pedro Ciriaco forced Shoppach at second (moving WMB to third), and Ellsbury fouled out to third.
In the ninth, Middlebrooks singled to right, took second on DI, went to third on a wild pitch and scored on Aviles's fielder's choice.
Adrian Gonzalez went 0-for-4, only the second time in his last 25 games he has failed to get a hit.
Ellsbury, CF
Crawford, LF
Pedroia, 2B
Gonzalez, 1B
Ross, RF
Middlebrooks, 3B
Shoppach, C
Aviles, SS
Ciriaco, DH
Both choices presume that the reader/Red Sox fan was not interested in the team or season before this recent stretch of success. It supposes that a person would be interested in the team only if they are 'going someplace', only if they are winning.
I understand that there is the issue of injured players (Ellsbury, Crawford) coming back to the lineup, but I believe that a fan follows and supports her team no matter how many players are on the disabled list, whether they are in first place or last place. ... When I checked, 81% had voted "Absolutely!"
6 comments:
It supposes that a person would be interested in the team only if they are 'going someplace', only if they are winning.
This is what so many people don't understand about the serious fan of any sport.
Will you forget all about this good stretch after the next loss?
"What good stretch? I've been told this team stinks and is unlikeable so my mind is made up." --100%
"Of course. In 2012, I as a sports fan only know what I've seen in the last game, inning, or sometimes pitch." --also 100%
"I don't know what to think. The pitch that I was going to base my opinion on was not shown by NESN because they were doing a tour of a blank cement hallway!"
The only good that came out of last night's game was that I learned a new word: desultory. Thanks!
I was worried I used it within the past few weeks but was too lazy to check!
While your general sentiments about ridiculous polls and media coverage and such are on point, this one does say "excited," not "interested."
Post a Comment