Deja Vu All Over Again?

Wow.

A lot of the Sox fans out here in Seattle took over the Owl & Thistle last night for Game 6. We couldn't get the back room at our usual haunt (Spitfire) and the owner of the Owl & Thistle is a Sox fan, so it was the best available fallback option. It was a better backup option than TBS'. We turned on TBS expecting to see the pregame, only to find Bloopers and Practical Jokes, followed by the Steve Harvey Show. I had to call my Dad to make sure we were on the right channel. Then Mom called to keep me up to date with Crisp reaching and then getting picked off. Thankfully, a few people had their internet-enabled cell phones pointing at the mlb.com web site so we knew about Upton's home run before the TBS broadcast resumed.

My biggest hope for the game was to see Beckett channel Pedro back in Game 5 of the '99 ALDS, to just gut and guile it out without his best stuff. I figured if he could just keep the Rays at bay for five innings or so...maybe we could force a Game 7. I smiled as the TBS announcers made a comment about Pedro's performance in that playoff game later in the inning.

What the hell is going on with the TBS announcers, by the way? I know they're not technically Rays announcers, but it sure seems like it. Even the on screen graphics seem a bit slanted. When the Rays have a runner on first, we're treated to tidbits about the number of stolen bases by the Rays or that player. When the Red Sox have a runner on first, the graphics point out how many double plays the batter has hit into. When Beckett took the mound for the bottom of the third after Youuuuuuk's second RBI, TBS showed a graphic saying that Beckett had been given four leads so far in the playoffs and had given the lead back in the next half inning each time. I was half expecting a graphic when Francona was on camera saying that he didn't support the troops.

The only pitcher to cough up a lead last night was "Big Game" James Shields, and on the very first batter. I'm at a complete loss as to how he got his nickname. I even looked up Shields' stats, figuring that maybe he'd pitched with another team and had won a big game. Nope. He's now 0-2 in his the two biggest games of his career. Maybe someone with the Rays was a Lakers fan back in the 80's and tried to re-use James Worthy's nickname to build up Shields' confidence. That's the only possible explanation.

Speaking of someone who needed a confidence builder, how about 'Tek? I hope the Sox brass re-signs him for two years, that he gets his batting average back up over .260 and that the Sox manage to come up with a prospect to try to fill his shoes once he's ready to hang them up.

The Sox bullpen did quite the job, not giving up a hit for the next four innings. I'm still having trouble believing that Okajima got through two innings. I really expected Tito to go with Delcarmen for the seventh, especially the bottom of the Rays' lineup was due up that inning. Masterson looks great when he remembers to slow down, breathe and throw strikes. Papelbon sounds exhausted according to quotes in the Globe sports page, but the Rays' batters looked like the ones who were exhausted in the ninth.

And the Sox have forced another Game 7. Mercy.

Game 5 - Live From Imperial Lanes in Seattle

One thing you can say about the Sox - they're rarely boring.

I watched the early innings of Game 5 at an Irish pub before heading out to my bowling night. No, I hadn't given up when it was 5-0. Hell no. I got to bowling a little early, talked to the folks in charge and got them to put TBS on the monitors over a couple empty lanes. Then I bribed three teams to make sure my team was next to those monitors.

People kept coming over to check on the score. A couple of those people had Red Sox gear on. Other people near my lane asked how many of them were bandwagoners and drew some icy stares in return. Right after Paps gave up the double to make it 7-0, a bowler on one of the other teams (who had just helped finish off a pitcher of beer I'd provided as part of the lane shift) started flipping me shit about the game. "It's early yet" was all I said.

I'd love to say I *knew* the Sox would come back and win the game when it was 7-0. All I could do was hope. "If Pedroia can just knock in a run, maybe that'll start something..." "If Papi can take Balfour deep, then it's a three run game..."

After Papi's home run, I walked past the other lanes, finding the Sox fans and giving a couple quick updates. More and more people came over to check the monitors, heading back to their lanes only when it was their turn to bowl. Gimme spares were missed. Drew homered to make it a one run game. Crisp knocked in the tying run but ended the inning trying to take second. My cell phone buzzed again. Dad. We were both a little shocked, a little giddy and a little angry by Crisp's aggressiveness on the basepaths, but we figured you cut a guy a little slack for coming through with the hit there.

By the time Masterson got Pena to ground into a double play and the Sox ninth was kept alive by a bad throw by Longoria, most of the teams had finished bowling for the night. The Sox fans headed to the bar area where we watched JD Drew's game ending ground rule single. The bar area erupted. My cell phone buzzed and my Dad and I celebrated together despite the distance. I headed back to my lane, finished my string and let my thoughts drift to something I hadn't expected. Game 6.

The Texas Con Man

The Clemens / Mitchell report brouhaha fascinates me.

My initial reaction to the Mitchell report was skeptical. Although I'll admit that I enjoyed seeing a lot of Yankees players listed in the report, it also bugged me that someone affiliated with the Red Sox was in charge of the report. I didn't want the perception that specific teams were singled out while others were protected. The night before the Mitchell report came out, I remember dreading the thought of seeing Big Papi listed in the report. No one wants something like that to taint happy memories.

I believe that a good percentage of players have been using steroids and/or HGH. I'm no Mitchell report expert. I've read articles and summaries but haven't tried to wade my way through the actual report. What really surprised me was that a lot of what was in the report was such hearsay and could really affect how players were perceived. The link to Brian Roberts was the one that seemed most tenuous. Did anyone really believe that Brian Roberts (Brian Roberts?!?) had used steroids? Whoops! Apparently, he has. Roberts admitted that he'd used steroids once.

Personally, I think that players who used them should (and likely will) have a tougher time getting into the Hall of Fame. I don't care that they were competing against other players using performance enhancing drugs. Does anyone look back at Shoeless Joe and the Black Sox and say "Gambling was rampant and a lot of players probably fixed games at some point. What if we just look at their careers prior to the 1919 World Series?" The tough part can be determining where to draw the line. Do you think that the player's performance was affected by the drugs and/or did the player's decision to use the drugs affect the integrity of the game?

I have less of an issue with players that used steroids or HGH to recover from an injury. Yes, it's against the rules. Players who get caught doing this should receive an appropriate suspension. Yes, Rodney Harrison comes to mind. Andy Pettitte comes to mind, too, but we'll get back to him in a bit. I don't think that simply having used steroids and/or HGH to recover from an injury warrants keeping a player out of the Hall of Fame. It's still a gray area for me, but I don't lump "one time" offenders in with players who have been on doping schedules for years.

When Clemens' name appeared in the Mitchell report, I was surprised. Long before the Mitchell report, a good friend of mine sent me a link to an article that talked about steroid rumors and wondered why Clemens had gotten a free pass since much of the suspicion around Bonds stemmed from the dramatic improvement late in his career. The article pointed to Clemens' last four years with the Red Sox and then the resurgence with the Blue Jays and Yankees in the "twilight of his career" and wondered why Clemens' performance wasn't treated with more of a skeptical eye.

Admittedly, I have my own biases as a Red Sox fan. Most Red Sox fans' recollection of Clemens during those last four years was that he simply wasn't in shape. He perceived the Red Sox' contract offer as a slight, took the biggest offer he received in that offseason (despite repeatedly saying he could only imagine himself pitching for a team from his home state of Texas and could never pitch against the Red Sox, so he was pretty sure if he left that he'd go to Houston), worked out like a madman and was dominant once again. I'm guessing that, like most Red Sox fans, I watched him pitch in Toronto and said "This is how he should have been pitching with the Sox". In my mind, Clemens was simply back. All it took was some extra cash and extra motivation.

When Clemens first pitched against the Sox in Fenway and stared up at Duquette's seats after pitching a masterpiece, I was actually pleased for him. In his second season in Toronto, my opinion started to shift. Where had this guy been for the last few years? Of course, when he demanded a trade to the Yankees, all bets were off. Wiping his sweat onto Babe Ruth's monument at Yankee Stadium, his constant announcements about how retired/unretired he is on any given day, announcing his nth comeback over the Jumbotron from George Steinbrenner's private box, etc. all affected my opinion of him.

With all that said, I was still surprised to see Clemens not just listed on the Mitchell report, but as one of the second most frequently referenced player in the report behind Barry Bonds. The information in the report seemed a little iffy until Pettitte admitted that McNamee had injected him with HGH in 2002. Combine this startling announcement with the fact that McNamee can go to jail if he lied and the questions in my mind went from "What is McNamee's motivation to point the finger at Clemens?" to "Why would McNamee tell the truth about Pettitte's use of HGH but lie about Clemens?"

All of Clemens' bluster in the past couple weeks has only made him look more guilty. It's all so staged. Put out a press release about how upset you are and how you've hired OJ Simpson's private investigators to uncover the truth. Do an emotional nationally aired interview with your favorite reporter lobbing you softball questions. (Given how crying seemed to change New Hampshire's opinion of Hilary Clinton, maybe Roger should have chosen Barbara Walters to handle the interview so she could get him to cry.) Record conversations with your "friend" and try to get him to slip up. Play the recording to the press and make believe it helps prove your point. Get visibly upset when talking to reporters, wonder why no one gives you the benefit of the doubt given how true you've always been to your word and claim you don't care about the Hall of Fame. File a lawsuit. Stay on the offensive.

I'm really looking forward to the Senate hearings. Actually, it's not so much the hearings themselves I'm interested. It's the aftermath. I fully expect Clemens and McNamee will each tell their side of the story. He said / she said. They'll each look bad but neither will say they've lied. Which means that at least one of them is lying under oath. We know how well that's received. The Senate will release the hounds on both of them until they uncover something that proves that one of them is lying. That's no skin off McNamee's nose since he already goes to jail if he lied.

It's Clemens who is upping the stakes now, but only for himself. It's all he can do to try to salvage his image. But maybe while Congress is rescheduling hearings, Clemens should ask Bonds how much he's been enjoying the investigation that followed his denials before Congress and whether trying to salvage his image was worth it.