Tony Mazz - You've done it again

So the Globe's Tony Massarotti is up to his old tricks again. He wrote an article today for the Globe about how the Yankees have caught up to the Sox in developing their own players, and they aren't just winning by spending money. He says for the Red Sox Dustin Pedroia, Yanks have Robinson Cano. For Jon Lester, there is Joba Chamberlain. For Daniel Bard, Phil Hughes. For Jacoby Ellsbury, there is Melky Cabrera. He then stops, because if he kept comparing home-grown talent, he'd have to acknowledge Sox also have Papelbon, Youkilis, and Buchholz on the team now. A slight edge. Not to mention that of those farm players the Sox have, Pedroia, Ellsbury, Lester, Papelbon and Youkilis are were key players on the Sox '07 World Series team.

But what about just his argument that the Yankees aren't just widely spending money to try to win. Let's look at some facts -

• Of MLB's top 4 highest paid players, 3 are Yankees - A-Rod, Teixeira, Jeter.
• Of the top 25 highest paid players, Yankees have 6. Red Sox have zero.
  
• For their starting rotation to start the season plus closer, Yankees spent over $57 million. Sox under 35.
• For their opening day lineups, Yankees spent over $125-million; Sox under $70.
• Yankees outspend Red Sox at every single position, except right field.
• As far building from the farm system, Yankees pay $85 million this year to four players signed as free agents the last two offseasons.
  
• Highest paid Red Sox is JD Drew at $14-million per season. Yankees have six guys who make more than that.
• Yankees have nine players making over $10 million. Sox have four.
  

So while yes, the Yankees have had a few players chip in from their farm system, let's no go crazy here Tony. They are still about spending money to win. Maybe there isn't anything wrong with that, but there is no need to try to pretend the Yankees are anything other than what they are.

Why bother with facts? They just get in the way.

All us Red Sox fans know the team is in trouble. Today for Boston.com, writer Tony Massarotti writes about just that, noting that even if the Sox make the playoffs, it is going to be a battle to the end, which will stop the team from being able to rest in the final few days and set up their rotation.

A possible good point. But Mazz goes on to remind us about 2004 and 2007 - when the Sox decided that just making the playoffs via the Wild Card was enough, and didn’t go after the Division, choosing rather to rest. It paid off with the Wild Card in ‘04 and ‘07. One major problem - the Sox won the Division in 2007. It was kind of a big deal - first time since 1995, first time a team other than the Yankees won the Division since 1997. Remember ALCS - games six and seven played in Fenway? That doesn't happen without winning the division.

How he makes this error (and it isn’t caught by an editor) is beyond me. But it gets worse, because Mazz has to make his point. He writes, “Let's turn back the clock to 2007 for a moment. ‘It means a lot, but it means nothing as far as winning a World Series,’ manager Terry Francona said that year while the Red Sox were seemingly losing grasp of the division title. ‘It means a lot for what you set out to accomplish, I think. I don't think there's any getting around that, and I don't think we want to. But when it's all said and done, it won't have any bearing on how far we get into the postseason.’

So not only does Mazz, who gets paid to write about the Red Sox, not remember 2007, not only is he too lazy to fact check, but he compounds his error by making up facts when he writes, “while the Red Sox were seemingly losing grasp of the division title.”

Listen, I know errors can happen. But this is just so careless I find it really troubling. Aren’t there editors? If you walked into a sports bar in Boston and said the Sox did not win the Division in 2007, how long until 10 people told you you were wrong?

Mazz goes on to write this, “For these Red Sox, lest anyone misunderstand, this is all about the pitching. With the weekend results in Texas, the Sox are now 32-15 in games started by the tandem of Josh Beckett and Jon Lester, 34-36 in games started by anyone else.”

That is an interesting stat, but is also a rather large leap to say it means it is all about the pitching. Lester and Beckett are very good - of course the Sox will win most of their starts. They can win those games whether or not they are hitting. The fact the Sox are 34-36 in all other starts, can say as much about the lack of hitting as it can the pitching. There needs to be more information that easily could have been found out - WHIP, ERA, etc for the games not started by Beckett/Lester.

Clay Buchholz in his last two starts has gone 13 innings, allowed only 3 ER. The Sox lost both of those games - so, is it really all about the pitching, Mazz?

No, no, don't get up

I really hate this f#cking guy from this photo.  I took this photo while riding on The Metro during rush hour.  This guy was just lounging on the seat with his bike, checking his phone, while being surrounded by a train filled with people standing because there were no other seats.  Hey you sir, lying on the seats - you are a douchebag.