For the first three games of the season, it was the pitching that did in the Red Sox, as they were battered by the Texas Rangers lineup. Last night in Cleveland, the Red Sox got decent pitching, but couldn’t hit, and dropped their fourth straight game to begin season, losing 3-1 to the Indians. Get all the coverage at

The 0-4 start has caused the predictable uproar, which is not aided by such silly tweets like this one

[blackbirdpie id=”55625156655194112″]

And blog posts like this one – Is the season over already for Red Sox?

The substance of that Tweet was repeated by most of the reporters on the Red Sox beat at some point. These are the professional writers. Not reactionary fanboy bloggers (and I mean that in the nicest way possible).

Almost all teams have four (or even five) game losing streaks. Most just don’t happen at the start of the season. The Sox hopes for their first win now rest with Daisuke Matsuzaka.

As players press, offense stalls – Sean McAdam has the Sox offense pressing, and getting out of the patient style they normally approach at-bats with.

Not enough of an effort – John Tomase says that Josh Beckett’s performance (5 innings, 3 runs) was not acceptable.

Red Sox in search of their swagger (and a win – Rob Bradford has the Sox in need of a boost.

Pressure mounting on winless Red Sox – Gordon Edes has the Sox feeling the pressure to get a win. Nick Cafardo has the Sox trying to remain optimistic.

Top prospect Iglesias discovering his comfort zone – Tim Britton has the phenom shortstop feeling comfortable at AAA Pawtucket.

Kalish eager to develop down at Pawtucket – Maureen Mullen has the outfielder looking to keep improving his game.

Carl Crawford out of order – Scott Lauber’s notebook in the Herald has the outfielder with another hitless night. The Globe notebook from Peter Abraham has Beckett unable to pick up his teammates. The CSNNE notes from Sean McAdam have the Indians working Beckett hard.

The Celtics used a strong second half to defeat their Atlantic division rivals the Philadelphia 76ers last night at the Garden, 99-82. Get the full coverage from

Starting to come together – Paul Flannery has the Celtics as a team, and specifically the bench, starting to put things together.

Green’s energy lights way – Frank Dell’Apa has the Celtics last night getting the kind of all-around game they’ve been seeking from Jeff Green since they acquired him.

Nenad Krstic takes off his thinking cap – Steve Bulpett has the center returning to action and looking better than he did before his injury. A. Sherrod Blakely has Krstic able to play freely.

Celtics-Sixers could spark old fire – Peter May says a potential playoff matchup between these old foes could be interesting. Steve Bulpett says that the matchup seems likely to happen.

O’Neal enjoys a fresh start – The Globe notebook has Jermaine O’Neal looking good last night, and ready to take on more minutes. The Herald notebook from Mark Murphy has Green blossoming last night. The MetroWest notes from Scott Souza have Krstic adjusting to coming off the bench. The notes have more on Green accepting a challenge from Doc Rivers.

This ‘contributor’ was at the heart of Celtics Pride – Joe Fitzgerald says that Satch Sanders was what being a champion is all about.

It was odd and sad to see Peter King complaining about the election of Sanders to the Hall of Fame, and even odder to see him complain about “16 Celtics in 24 years” being elected. I’m still trying to figure out which 24 year period he is talking about. If it is the last 24 years, that list includes at least seven players who played most of their career elsewhere, like Dominique Wilkins, Pete Maravich and Dave Bing. He has no problem though, with 13 Steelers being elected in 15 years though.

No dispute: Today is key to labor fight – Greg A Bedard says that today’s hearing is critical to the NFL’s future.

Bill Belichick Could Trade Up to Land Top-10 Pick and 19 Other Patriots Thoughts – Jeff Howe with some draft thoughts.

Lucic, Krejci and Horton head for playoffs as Boston Bruins’ top line – Mike Loftus says that this line is the key to the Bruins playoff success.

Setting things right – Mark Farinella wants to rule the world, and in that world, Joe Castiglione would no longer be able to register disappointment in the Red Sox when a rally fails.

Taking a shot in the dark – Brendan Hall on ESPNBoston has the story of a  kid from Catholic Memorial High School who is going to shoot hoops for 24 hours straight on Saturday to raise money for brain cancer research.

With the Bruins and Red Sox both in action tonight, the Red Sox are being pushed over to NESN Plus tonight. Check this NESN webpage for NESN Plus on your TV system.

Here’s a peek at a new ESPN documentary – The Brady 6:

The Brady 6

It’s hard to believe that Tom Brady, a three-time Super Bowl champion, was ever considered an underdog. Yet in the 2000 NFL Draft, six other quarterbacks came off the board before Brady’s name was called at number 199 in the sixth round. ESPN’s Year of the Quarterback and NFL Films tell the story of how a future MVP came to be so wrongly misjudged during his quest to make it to the NFL—and what ever happened to the six quarterbacks taken ahead of him. The hour-long documentary The Brady 6 airs Tuesday, April 12, at 8 p.m. ET on ESPN


11 thoughts on “Sad Sack Sox Still Can’t Win

  1. The whole "no 0-4 team has ever won the World Series" is a lot like saying that no person born on Feb. 29th has ever been elected president. It says more about the statistical anomaly of the 0-4 start (or of being a leap baby) than it does about the underlying team/person.

    Even if you assume that every baseball game is a coin flip, a given team will only have a 1:16 chance of starting 0-4. Which means that in the WS era, you would have statistically expected it to happen between 5 and 8 times (EDIT: between 5-8 times for the eventual champion to have gone 0-4, not for any team to have gone 0-4). But baseball games are not coin flips — good teams win more than 50% of the time, and bad teams win less than 50% of the time. If we assume that the team that wins the world series has a base chance of winning of, say, 60% (that would result in a 97-win team), now the chances of losing 4 games to start the year is (.4)^4, or about a 2.5% chance. So now your expectation, over the entire history of the WS, is that an 0-4 start would have happened 3 times. But 110 chances (give or take) is not a huge sample size, so the margin of error in that prediction (aka the standard deviation) is quite large. Having no 0-4 starts in 110 4-sequence results isn't, therefore, particularly surprising, or predictive — it's just interesting.

    If you want to be predictive, you should note that no 0-4 team has ever gone 162-0. And never will!


  2. The 1977 Red Sox, I believe, started out 0-4 and ended up winning 97 games with a team very short on pitching and very long on power. Alas, 97 wins wasn't enough to beat out the Yankees for the AL East crown that year, and since there was no wild card that meant no post-season for Boston. Does anyone believe that if the Sox end up with 97 wins this season that it won't be good enough to at least get the wild card slot into the playoffs? The start has been disappointing, but with 158 games to go, I'm inclined to hold off on the gloom-and-doom, "no team has ever won the World Series with this kind of start" nonsense for at least a few more weeks. By the way, the media keeps mentioning that 1996 was the last time the Sox started a season off this poorly (they were 3-15 before getting it together); it's worth noting that the '96 Sox did, for awhile, get themselves into the wild card race that summer before fading in September.


  3. I'm too busy being annoyed by the C's inability to have a healthy center and the way the Bruins utterly imploded a few nights ago to be be seriously worried about team going on a 4 game losing streak in the midst of a 162 game season. DA raised some good points last night about the out of control optimism that was coming out of Fenway. If they're winless at the end of the weekend, I will gladly be polishing the Panic Button. Right now, I'm just looking at . Wondering. Hoping…


  4. No different than claiming that no baseball team had ever won a playoff series after being down 0-3 in a best of 7 series. Just because it was correct doesn't mean it would/will never happen.


  5. No 0-4 team has ever won the World Series. it's a fact. I don't think any of the tweeting reporters were saying that no 0-4 team ever WILL win the Series, but it's an absolute set in stone fact that it has never happened. Personally, I don't have the resources to look that up, so if the reporters are getting it from ESPN or Elias and passing it along to me….whats wrong with that? They're doing their jobs.


  6. Why do people get so offended when the media incorporates a true fact to support the argument that the team is playing dreadful, listless baseball? Everyone's panties get so bunched up if people criticize the team. The "no team has ever won the World Series starting 0-4" was said (and written) tongue in cheek by the majority of the media members. Obviously 0-4 (or 0-5) is not reason to cancel the rest of the season, but to take offense over a fun comment illustrates how overly sensitive people are around here. The "negativity" and harshness of the Boston media today is 1/10th of what it was 40 years ago, but we need to cling to the absurd premise that the Boston media is out to get everyone. That simply is not the case.


    1. A "fun" comment? It's a stupid, inane, predictable comment made solely to play to fears and panic fans.

      It's a "true fact" the same as "No team has ever won the World Series in the year 2011." Perfectly true statement.

      Calling such a lame comment stupid doesn't seem "oversensitive" to me. If anyone has their "panties in a bunch" here, it would seem to be you. This has nothing to do with being critical of the team. If you hadn't notice, just about everyone, including the fans are criticizing the team. Harshly.


    2. If I were doing a story about you, Nelson, and led the article with "No child murders have ever been pinned on Nelson"… which (I assume) is a true fact, would you view that as just a "fun" statement of fact that nobody should get their panties in a bunch about? Or would you view it as an indirect way of saying something else?

      My guess is the latter.


  7. Peter King needs to be slapped. He spends all year declaring he doesn't watch basketball, yet randomly comments about Satch Sanders' HOF credentials? He spends more time taking avatar pictures of his dumb dog than following Basketball, let alone Basketball history.

    Credibility = ZERO


Comments are closed.