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?