Boston 11-4; 2 GA of NY

Photo: Movie poster for Major League, from its Wikipedia page.

It's been awhile since the Sox played a game, and even longer since I posted about it.  Hopefully Boston will play today--Saturday, 4.20.13--as the city needs the distraction and celebration.  It'll be a soggy Fenway, unfortunately, if they play.  Speaking of rain, I got rained out of Fenway last Friday, and my next game, on the 23rd, looks like rain, too.  Thanks...

--It's odd and sad to see Terry Francona in a Cleveland Indians uniform.

--About 9,000 people, on average, watched each of the three games at Cleveland's Progressive Field, ex-Jacob's Field, ex-Municipal Stadium.  That's pathetic.  The Red Sox's AAA team, the Pawtucket Red Sox, draw more than that at its McCoy Stadium on a nice summer day.

--I don't miss Mike Aviles.  And didn't he go to Toronto in the deal for John Farrell, the Sox manager?

--Nick Swisher doesn't look right in a Cleveland Indians uniform, either.

--The Indians team right now--and its attendance at the park--is exactly like the Indians in the movie Major League.  Watching the series was like watching the movie.

--I wouldn't pay to watch the Indians play, either, but I would pay to see some of the Indians play, and some of the players on any visiting team.

--Mike Napoli can motor for a big, stocky guy.

--The Sox are playing Billy Beane ball: Don't swing for the fences; work the count; make the pitcher throw a lot of pitches; wear out the starting pitcher; get into the bullpen; hit singles and doubles; draw walks; keep the line moving.  Just like 2003, 2004 and 2007.  And not at all like last year.

--The Sox defense is the most steady I've seen it, at least since 2007, and maybe better than 2003 and 2004.  Maybe the best, day by day, since I've been watching.  And I've been watching since Ned Martin and Bob Montgomery, if you know what I'm sayin'.

--I'll say it again: Lester and Buchholz are pitching with rhythm, efficiency and confidence, and they're both 3-0 with ERAs hovering near 1.00.

--And Lester is keeping his fastball down and not trying to blow everyone away with high heat he doesn't have, a la Josh Beckett.  (Though, truth be told, Beckett's pitching very well, so far, for the Dodgers this year, with a 3.26 ERA and a 1.1 WHIP.  But he hasn't won a game yet, which leads me to say--)

--This year's team is a perfect example of addition by subtraction.  Yes, the guaranteed money to these guys is gone, too, but so are Bobby Valentine, Josh Beckett, Carl Crawford, Adrian Gonzalez, and all of the obnoxiousness and ridiculousness.  Any team without these guys is bound to get better.

--Couldn't the Sox management have done all that and kept Francona to begin with?  (Though I do like John Farrell.)

--I'm changing my tune.  (Get used to that.)  With Ortiz due back, it's right that the Sox send down Jackie Bradley, Jr. and keep Mike Carp, who's hitting well, especially considering his lack of playing time.  Bradley needs to get himself straightened out.  His time will come again.

--Speaking of that, I don't like that sometimes these things are called "demotions," as in "Bradley was demoted to Pawtucket."  Iglesias was hitting over .400 when he was "demoted." Can't we just report it as "sent," as in "To make room for Ortiz, Bradley was sent to Pawtucket?"  It's not just semantics; sometimes it's inaccurate, as in the Iglesias example.

--Jamie Erdahl and Jenny Dell are wonderful, but they're not Heidi Watney.  Who's sort of wasted in MLB Network's Quick Pitch, I might add.

--If you're interested, my thoughts about the marathon massacre and its aftermath will soon be on my regular blog, here.

--And my review of the movie 42 will be on that site, and on this one, as well.

Game 3--Yankees 4 Red Sox 2, and Roger Ebert

Not too much to say about this one, mostly because I missed most of it, because...well, because I have a life, that's why, and I had other things to do.  But I caught a little, not enough to post a picture and to write a long entry, but just enough to say a couple of things:

--Though he lost today, if Dempster strikes out 8 in five innings, and gives up one solid run and two on a little blooper just over the infield, then he'll win more than he'll lose.

--But he can't walk four and throw so many pitches that he's over 100 in just five innings.

--I didn't know that David Ross, the Sox's back-up catcher, is the catcher whose pitchers have the lowest aggregate ERA in the majors over the past few years.  In other words, he's Varitek, but with a cannon for an arm, as he's also among the majors' best at throwing out runners.  And he hit well tonight, too.

--Pedro's doing furniture commercials, for those of you still wondering if an athlete can sell out many years after he's retired.

--Losing 4-2 is a good loss, if there can be such a thing.  Even the best teams, the 100-game winners, will lose 62.  I'm not saying the Sox will win 100 games--they won't--but sometimes the other pitcher just pitches a little bit better, like tonight.  Still a well-played game, one that didn't overly tax the bullpen.

--In fact, it was a well-played series.  You don't try to win every game if there are 162 of them; you try to win every series.  They did that, and in a hostile ballpark.  Against a Triple-A major league team, sure, but you have to beat up on those.

--I'm getting comments left for me to moderate by INSKATES.  It sounded suspicious, so I looked it up, thinking it may just be an online nickname for somebody.  It's not; it's an online company that sells ice skates.  So if you see it here, or elsewhere, let the blog owner know, and don't click on the link.  The comment itself was oddly worded and a little suspicious.

--Bradley continues to impress.  Victorino was maybe a little too aggressive, trying to come home on a ball that didn't get too far away, but that kind of an attitude towards the game will win more games than it'll lose.

--It's not sports-related, but I'll go there, anyway: Roger Ebert dying--I give that a thumb's down.  I looked forward to his review of a movie sometimes more than I looked forward to the movie itself.  The first Pulitzer-prize winner for movie criticism, his reviews of movies were often about more than just that movie.  His reviews were specific, yet irreverent, very knowledgeable about theory and about the business, yet also free of jargon and very easy to read.  Smart, and funny.  Very down-to-Earth, filled with common sense and a real affection for movies in general.  He will be missed.