The Sox double standard
10/23/2007
Stalter Home / Sports Channel / Bullz-Eye Home
Well, well, well, it looks like the shoe is on the other foot this year for the Red Sox, doesn’t it?
Three years ago, the BoSox were everybody’s darlings in their pursuit to “beat the curse” and to overcome the big, bad New York Yankees. Everyone prayed for a Yankee-less World Series that season and the Red Sox made that dream a reality, beating the Bronx Bombers in a thrilling ALCS and eventually going on to win their first title in more than 85 years.
Fast forward to present day, and now the Red Sox are a “Nation” and have become Goliath to the Colorado Rockies’ David. Now all of a sudden they’re not the ones trying to overcome an opponent with an enormous payroll, because they are the team with the enormous payroll.
How does it feel to be the New York Yankees, Boston? Okay, so calling them the Yankees is a bit much, but it is ironic how the Red Sox have changed their role since winning the World Series in 2004. It’s also ironic how baseball fans have grown to hate the Yankees for buying championships, yet Boston is essentially doing the same thing.
Fans basically excused the Red Sox for spending as much as they did in ’04 ($125 million, second most in MLB) because the cash was used to gun down the Yankees. Well, how do fans feel now? Boston bid more than $51 million just to negotiate with Daisuke Matsuzaka, and another $52 million to sign him. Hmm, who was the winning pitcher in Game 7 of the ALCS this year? Looks like that investment paid off. They were also the team that mortgaged their future just to land one of the hottest commodities around the trade deadline, reliever Eric Gagne. That was a little Yankees-esque wasn’t it?
Are fans outraged that the Red Sox spent just under $90 million more than their World Series counterparts this year? Probably not, because the Red Sox aren’t the Yankees, even though they’ve essentially become Yankees Light.
The reason why fans hate the Yankees so much is because not only do they spend more, they also win more (13 straight postseason appearances and counting). If the Red Sox didn’t choke during the second half of last season, they would currently have five straight postseason appearances, which is much less than 13 but still four more playoff runs than 28 other teams.
I realize the Yankees have been working hard for years to earn the hatred of baseball fans everywhere, but come on; the Red Sox are doing the same thing and yet we ignore them because they’re not as arrogant as the Yankees.
If we’re going to slam New York for spending to win, we have to slam Boston as well. They’re not the loveable losers they were in ’04, nor are they just out to beat the Yankees. They might have spent as much as they did in the offseason to match New York, but they’ve now turned into a juggernaut ready to steamroll through the competition.
It’s okay for the Red Sox to spend $90 million more than the Rockies, because they’re not breaking any rules. If Bud Selig and the baseball owners refuse to implement a cap, then why wouldn’t teams that are willing to spend do so in order to try and win?
What’s not okay, however, is that fans complain about the Yankees spending, yet ignore that Boston is doing the exact same thing. Yes, New York has been spending a lot longer than Boston has, but that’s not good enough to criticize the Yankees payroll every year yet look the other way when it comes to the Red Sox. In the past four years, Boston has ranked second in MLB team payrolls. Yet because they haven’t been numero uno, they apparently are immune to criticism.
It’s also crazy that fans continue to complain about the Yankees “buying all of their players.” In 2007, the Yankees had 13 home grown players: Jorge Posada, Robinson Cano, Andy Pettitte, Derek Jeter, Phil Hughes, Ian Kennedy, Hideki Matsui, Melky Cabrera, Andy Phillips, Shelley Duncan, Edwar Ramirez, Joba Chamberlain and Mariano Rivera.
Boston, on the other hand, only had five: Jason Varitek, Kevin Youkilis, Dustin Pedroia, Jon Lester and Jonathan Papelbon.
And yet, we hate the Yankees because they spend the most and “buy their team.” Welcome to the life of baseball fans, kings and queens of the double standard.
NFL head-scratcher
For the life of me, I’ve never understood something that most NFL teams do on a weekly basis. Now granted, I don’t have hard facts, but that really doesn’t matter for this argument.
Why do most teams choose to receive after winning the opening coin toss? Not one of the 14 teams from this past weekend elected to kickoff after winning the coin toss. Why?
The logical answer is obviously that if a team can get a quick score, they can essentially set the tone for the rest of the game. Cool, I get that. I also get that if a team can move the ball on its first offensive possession, it can determine field position for at least the first quarter and maybe even the first half.
However, isn’t football mostly about emotion? And what unit is mostly predicated on playing with fire and emotion? Gold star for those of you who said the defense.
Why don’t more teams send their defenses out onto the field first? It usually takes an offense a few series to get into a rhythm, but so many teams still choose to receive the ball, knowing that a punt is more likely to occur than scoring any kind of points.
There’s nothing that fires up an opposing team more than to generate a three-and-out on defense and force a punt on the opening series of a game. Two prime examples occurred in the Rams-Seahawks and Falcons-Saints games last week.
The Rams have the 30th-ranked offense in the league, yet elected to receive in their game at Seattle. On their first possession, they drove just eight yards, only took a minute and a half off the clock, and had to punt. Seattle then went right down the field and scored on their opening possession to quickly put a bad St. Louis team in a tough spot to open the game. Heading into halftime, the Seahawks led 10-3 and then proceeded to return the opening kick of the second half for a touchdown. Final score: Seahawks 33, Rams 6.
The Falcons have the 27th-ranked offense in the league and have not scored a touchdown on their opening offensive series in 30 straight contests, yet they elected to receive in their game at New Orleans. They did get four first downs before having to punt, but Saints returner Lance Moore took the punt back 48 yards, which completely wiped out the field position Atlanta had achieved. And while the Falcons led 13-7 at half, the Saints scored on their opening series in the third quarter, seizing momentum on their way to a 22-16 victory.
Two struggling teams with two bad offenses are playing on the road and they both choose to receive to start the game. Is it just me or is that not the absolute best way to approach winning a football game?
Granted, what a team does on its first possession doesn’t matter in the grand scheme of things, because good teams are going to find ways to win no matter what. If the Patriots offense goes three-and-out to start a game, it’s not like they’re worried about not putting up 50 points.
However, I’m mostly referring to teams not named the Patriots, Colts, Bengals or even the Cowboys. I’m talking about teams with inconsistent offenses. Put your fresh defense out on the field first, get a big stop and then you have the momentum. If your defense gives up a field goal or even a touchdown, okay, no big deal – you still have an entire game in front of you, plus you get the ball at halftime. Whether you’re leading or trailing, how big is it to get the ball back at the start of the second half? By that time, the flow of the game has been established and adjustments are being made.
Receiving the ball has to be an ego thing among head coaches. They must believe that choosing to kickoff is a sign of weakness. I could see trying to keep an excellent offense off the field as much as possible, but not every team has a quick strike attack. Why not let an emotional defense have first crack at setting the tone for the game?
Questions or comments? Send them to astalter@bullz-eye.com.