No ifs about it: season was a success

October 21, 2008|Bob Ryan, Globe Columnist

At times like these, history can be a refuge, if not necessarily a comfort. 3-1, or, I should say, 1-3, is not a good place to be. Holy Yastrzemski, were people around here actually taking a Red Sox Game 7 win for granted?

The 1967 Sox, the 1973 Celtics, and the 1982 Celtics all forced Game 7s after being down, 1-3. They all lost, and they all lost at home. And losing Game 7 in baseball makes the most sense because in this sport, one man can either spoil your day (Bob Gibson) or your evening (Matt Garza).

I sincerely hope you never thought for one millisecond that whatever happened in Fenway Park in the final three innings of Game 5 was going to have the slightest bearing on how Matt Garza would pitch three nights later in his own ballpark. The kid is a flat-out stud with no-hit potential every time he takes the mound. He was 11-9 this season because he still needs a bit more polish, but no one ever has doubted his stuff. The fact that he was selected over the very capable Andy Sonnanstine to be Joe Maddon's third starter tells you just how much the Rays skipper thinks of him.

He was capable of beating Jon Lester - of beating anybody, actually - and he did. End of story.

Of course, people are disappointed. There's nothing wrong with being disappointed. Winning three times in five years would have been nice. But that's as far as it should go. No one has a right to be angry. The team at Terry Francona's disposal for the 173d game of the season had pretty much maxed out, and a very strong case can be made that the Sox never should have been playing the Rays in the first place had the Angels not provided them with the proverbial early Yuletide gift.

Let us play the "if" game.

If, on the day the 2008 Boston Red Sox left spring training, someone had told you that Manny Ramírez would be traded; that Papi would miss 53 games; that Mike Lowell would miss 49 games; that Josh Beckett would win only 12 games and would have very few stretches when he'd look anything like the '07 Beckett; that Jed Lowrie would have to become the everyday shortstop; and that Clay Buchholz, far from building on that magical '07 September, would be a gruesome 2-9 with a 6.75 ERA, would you have settled for making the playoffs and then taking whatever came after that?

I believe the answer would have been Yes.

It's really the only rational way to look at things.

Now, it may still be difficult for some people to accept the fact that the Tampa Bay Rays are really this good, usually because they can't get past the $43 million payroll thing. Others simply cannot wrap their heads around the idea that a team could win 66 games one year and 97 the next.

Advertisement
Advertisement
|
|
|
|