I haven’t a clue who Pastor Michael Frisbee DD/DM is. But it seems he knows my work and liked it enough to copy it and use it as his own.

That’s right, we have someone who calls himself a “pastor” who copied passages from one of my own blog articles, did some editing, and added them into one of his own. Here are some examples of his copying (I’ve removed hyperlinks and styling, for simplicity).

• Mine: Christians have always celebrated “Christ’s birthday”: This is just not the case. For the first several centuries of Christianity, the birth of Jesus was not celebrated — at all. There are a number of reasons for this, but perhaps the most significant is that the earliest Christians viewed the celebration of birthdays, by definition, to be a pagan practice. Christians were discouraged from celebrating their own birthdays, so it’s hardly likely they’d have wanted to celebrate Christ’s.

  The Pastor’s: The Pastor’s: Christians have always celebrated Christ’s Birth. For the first several centuries of Christianity, the birth of Jesus was not celebrated. The earliest Christians viewed the celebration of birthdays, by definition, to be a pagan practice. Christians were discouraged from celebrating their own birthdays, so it is unlikely they celebrated Christ’s.

• Mine: The customs of Christmas are age-old: This is also not true. We think of things like gift-giving as an old Christmas tradition, but really, it’s not. From the time Christmas was first observed by the Church — intermittently in the 4th century, then more steadily by the middle of the 5th — and on into the Middle Ages, the only Christian activity performed on Christmas, was the celebration of a special Christmas mass — and in the first few centuries these special Christmas masses were attended only by clergy, not the laity.

  The Pastor’s: Christmas customs are centuries old. This is quite false. We think of things like giving gifts as an old Christmas tradition. From the time Christmas was first observed by the Church, intermittently in the 4th century, then more steadily by the middle of the 5th and on into the Middle Ages, the only Christian activity performed on Christmas was the celebration of a special Christmas mass. Within the first few centuries these special Christmas masses were attended only by clergy, not the congregation.

• Mine: All Christians celebrate Christmas: This claim is absurd on its face. There are, even now, some Christians who refuse to celebrate it, such as Jehovah’s Witnesses. Historically, there have been Christian sects who also did not celebrate it, and they even repressed it where they could (such as the Puritans did in colonial New England). The truth is that the only holiday that all Christian sects have in common, is Easter — but even then they don’t all observe it on the same date. Most sects also observe Pentecost in some way, even some that don’t observe Christmas.

  The Pastor’s: Christmas is celebrated by all Christians. This claim is ridiculous on its face. Even now, there are some Christians who refuse to celebrate it, such as Jehovah’s Witnesses. Historically, there have been Christian sects who also did not celebrate it, and they even repressed it where they could. The truth is that the only holiday that all Christian sects have in common, is Easter. Even then they don’t all observe it on the same date. Most sects also observe Pentecost in some way, even some that don’t observe Christmas.

• Mine: Christmas has always been celebrated only on December 25: This is not true, not only because not all Christians have designated December 25 as “Christmas,” but because not even all of those who do, actually celebrate that day. Some Christian sects — e.g. the Russian Orthodox Church — assign Christmas to days other than December 25. Other sects celebrate Epiphany, the annual commemoration of the visit of the Magi, in preference to Christmas. This is more common in Orthodox Christianity, but it’s found even among some western Christians, e.g many Hispanic cultures, which celebrate what they call “Three Kings Day.”

  The Pastor’s: Christmas has always been celebrated on December 25. This is not true, not only because not all Christians have designated December 25 as “Christmas,” but because not even all of those who do, actually celebrate that day. Some Christian sects assign Christmas to days other than December 25. Other sects celebrate Epiphany, the annual commemoration of the visit of the Magi, in preference to Christmas. This is more common in Orthodox Christianity, but it’s found even among some western Christians, among many Hispanic cultures for example, which celebrate what they call “Three Kings Day.”

• Mine: Christmas is the most sacred holiday on the Christian calendar. This is commonly stated, but is absolutely, undeniably, 100% not true. The most sacred holiday for Christians, is Easter, the day which commemorates Jesus’ resurrection. Easter was celebrated long before Christmas ever was, to the point where its dating was a point of contention among Christians a couple centuries before Christmas ever was pegged to the calendar. Easter was observed on varying dates as early as the middle of the 2nd century, and dating it was discussed, for example, at the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE. At that time — as noted already — Christmas was merely a mass that was held annually, and attended only by clergy, only in some places. It was not a “holiday” in any conventional sense, not even in terms of the Greco-Roman culture of that period.

  The Pastor’s: The most sacred holiday on the Christian calendar is Christmas. Undoubtedly this statement is untrue. The most sacred holiday for Christians, is Easter, the day which commemorates Jesus’ resurrection. Easter was celebrated long before Christmas ever was, to the point where its dating was a point of contention among Christians a couple centuries before Christmas was a thought. Easter was observed on varying dates as early as the middle of the 2nd century, and dating it was discussed at the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE. At that time it was noted that Christmas was merely a mass that was held annually, and attended only by clergy, only in some places. It was not a “holiday” in any conventional sense, not even in terms of the Greco-Roman culture of that period.

Now, I originally added a comment to the pastor’s blog article requesting credit for my “contribution” to his blog post. A couple of anonymous commenters replied to that, saying my link didn’t work (even though it clearly does), along with denials of the copying that took place (some of it lifted as-is, some of it mildly edited), and the truly fucking laughable claim that I was just trying to “use” the Pastor’s blog post to bring traffic to my own.

Unfortunately for these defenders of the Pastor, there clearly has been plagiarism here, and saying the Pastor is “honest” does nothing to change that. It’s a fact.

I wonder if Pastor Michael Frisbee has the fortitude to come here, admit what he did, apologize for it, then edit his blog post to give me credit. I don’t think this is too much to ask — even if his anonymous defenders think I haven’t been wronged. Really, it’s not up to them to decide.

For the record, all of my content on this blog is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Much of my commentary about the Sox back in the first week of May, applies to their September play. Actually, their last month was even worse than their first. The Sox were 7-20 in their last month of 2011, while they were a comparatively-much-better 12-15 for the same number of games at the start of the season.

At the moment, New England sportswriters are hanging their late-season collapse on injuries, the loss of Clay Buchholz at mid-season being cited as a particular culprit. I’ll admit that injuries hindered them, there’s no doubt about that. But by September, all MLB teams — good, bad, and in-between — were dealing with injuries. Even the Yankees, who ended with the best record in the American League, had their share of injuries this year. Basically, the injuries amount to a “wash” across the board of the MLB. Not to mention, they had a chance in April — while the whole team was in prime condition and uninjured — to build up victories. But they didn’t. (More on their pitiful April later.)

What’s more, the quality of play slipped, across the board. Red Sox pitching, hitting, fielding, and even base-running were all hideous in September. Josh Beckett and Jon Lester, who’d been phenomenal at mid-season, couldn’t win any games in September. Adrian Gonzales, who led the league in batting average most of the season, couldn’t get much done, either. The entire team was just fucking hideous. And even their best uninjured players showed performance problems. That’s another reason not to chalk this implosion up to injuries … even healthy players weren’t up to standard.

As with their April, the Sox’ September implosion was systemic and pervasive throughout the team.

The wide scale of the poor play suggests that coaching is to blame. While there’s a widespread assumption that manager Terry Francona will be let go after this embarrassing debacle of a season, most of the New England sportswriters are saying he’s being unfairly blamed. Even so, it’s clear that he was at least partially responsible. He’s the head of the team’s coaching staff and is responsible for that aspect of the team. If the coaching played a role in the horrific first and last months of the season, then Francona has to take some responsibility for that. He can’t not be at least partially at fault.

Then, too, there’s the matter of poor acquisitions, which is the the responsibility of general manager Theo Epstein. Here, we have not just one or two seasons of spectacular failures, but several. The list of high-priced flame-outs that Epstein paid for is legion. Julio Lugo, J.D. Drew, Daisuke Matsuzaka, John Lackey, and most recently Carl Crawford are merely a few of the many names that leap to mind as examples of this phenomenon. While every team has to deal with an occasional overpaid underperformer, Epstein’s record in this regard is worse than most.

At the risk, then, of sounding like one of those raging sports-talk callers who’ve been screaming for Francona and Epstein to be fired, I can’t help but agree with them, that at least one of them needs to go. After two seasons of falling short of playoff appearances … and a season before that of flaming out shamefully in the ALDS … it’s clear that whatever they’re doing simply is no longer working. Continuing the same strategies, cooked up by the same people, but with the expectation of different results, is almost the definition of insanity. The Red Sox need to change as a team, fundamentally, and that can only begin at or near the top of the organization.

The really sad part about all of this is that John Henry & the rest of the Red Sox ownership really have no economic incentive to change the team that much. Fenway Park is sold out, every single game, and the team is consistently and highly profitable, even without having made the playoffs for two years. I doubt the passionate Red Sox fanbase is going to pull its support for the team sufficiently to dent those massive profits. So I don’t expect that there will be much change in the organization. Just a lot of excuse-making and claims that they will do better next year — which they’ve done previously, obviously to no effect.

The only bright light of the Red Sox 2011 season, is the one team member who was still actually playing the game at the end … and that’s Jacoby Ellsbury. After his “lost season” in 2010 (after having been demolished by the human tank known as Adrian Beltre and then poorly treated by the Red Sox medical staff), he came back — and gloriously! He’d long been my favorite player, and all through 2010 I kept insisting he’d eventually overcome his injuries. He proved me right, and then some! His play this year was nothing short of MVP caliber, and I certainly hope the sportswriters will consider him in their voting (although I’m pretty sure he’ll be overlooked). It will be a crime if he’s not made the AL MVP for 2011.

An honorable mention goes to Alfredo Aceves, a young pitcher who gave his all, and remained more or less steady on the mound while the rest of the pitching staff took a nosedive.

One last thing that’s not being addressed by the sports media, is the role that the team’s dismal April played in this horrible season. Had the Sox started 15-12 in their first 27 games instead of 12-15, they would not have been in this position; they could have absorbed their September collapse safely and still made the playoffs. I said before that their early-season mediocrity would cost them dearly … and unfortunately I was right; it did! But New England sportswriters refuse to discuss this. I can’t imagine why they don’t … but they that’s just how it is. (Enablers to the end, they all are.)

I’d like to point out, too, that the Red Sox advertising campaign all season long has used the mottoes, “We’re all in” and “We won’t rest.” As in, “we’re committed to winning.” Clearly, however, they were not, in fact, “all in,” and in April and September, they did more “resting” than “playing.” They ought to be ashamed of themselves for trumpeting their commitment to winning, when they were not actually committed to winning.

But, they won’t be ashamed. They’re the Red Sox, after all, and no matter how dreadfully they play, they just keep rolling in money.

One last thing: It’s clear the Tampa Bay Rays deserved to get the AL Wild Card this year; it was no fluke, even if some might think so. I wish them luck — even though they’re rivals of the Red Sox in the AL East. The other three teams in the AL playoffs — the Detroit Tigers, Texas Rangers, & N.Y. Yankees — are all going to be tough competitors. So the Rays will need that luck.

Over the years I’ve had correspondents accuse me of being a committed Leftist. It’s true I’m no fan of the Religious Right, but that hardly makes me part of the ideological Left, or a cog in the machine of the Democratic Party. For the record, I despise ideology in all its forms. Every single last one of them, wherever they are, and whoever belongs to them. All ideologies are arbitrary collections of notions, cherry-picked to work to the personal advantage of those who advance them, and detrimental to everyone else and to society as a whole.

If any of you really feel the need to label my political affiliation, I suppose the best one I could come up with, is “Cynicalist.” Basically I don’t trust any politician as far as I can throw him or her. It doesn’t matter what party he or she belongs to — I do not believe any of them! None are trustworthy, because — as Lord Acton once stated so truthfully — power corrupts. Even if an official isn’t corrupt before s/he is elected, s/he will become corrupted once in office. It’s inevitable, and as unavoidable as death and taxes.

How do I know this? If simple economics doesn’t make it clear, then examples from history should. And I can think of no better example of it — one that happened, as chance would have it, during my formative years — than the Watergate scandal. This was not really just a single scandal; it was a complex, multi-pronged affair, orchestrated by a lengthy cast of characters, all of whom were up to various forms of wrongdoing … some of them independent of each other. The entire convoluted debacle included burglary, espionage, extortion, perjury, obstruction of justice, campaign-finance hijinks, and more. It dragged on for years, and was extensive and significant enough to force Richard Nixon to resign as President … even though only about 4½ months into the scandal, he managed to be re-elected to his second term, and hung in until August of ’74.

The list of slippery characters whose names were trotted out each night on the evening news, almost every night as the scandal slowly unfolded, reached laughable proportions by the time Congressional hearings were held. The 18½ minute gap in the Oval Office tapes became legendary, and the words “not to the best of my recollection” — oft-spoken by White House staffers — a catch-phrase of the era. The whole thing, in fact, was almost surreal.

As the Watergate scandal was swirling around them, the Nixon White House — and while it still existed in 1972, his re-election committee — contrived other scandals in the lives and careers of other politicians. Nixon operative Donald Segretti famously referred to these dirty tricks as “ratfucking,” and he engaged in this practice with relish. For instance, he forged the so-called “Canuck letter” which ended the presidential candidacy of Sen. Ed Muskie of Maine. Since then, “ratfucking” has become a cottage industry in American politics, and has even gone beyond political campaigns; it’s now being done by bloggers and pundits (WebCite cached article).

So, how does one know a politician or pundit is lying? Whenever his/her lips are moving. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why I’m neither a Rightist nor a Leftist, but rather, a Cynicalist.

Update: As luck would have it, no sooner did I post this story, than the National Archives released the Pentagon Papers (WebCite cached article). The leak of this document to the New York Times in 1971 ended up being a precursor to the Watergate debacle. The Nixon White House — which had had nothing directly to do with creating this document, it had been finished just prior to Nixon taking office in 1969 — nevertheless (in its paranoia) launched a concerted effort to find the leaker (RAND Corporation analyst Daniel Ellsberg). Once they’d found out who he was, they further worked to harass and discredit him, by any means they could find. Quite unbelievably, this campaign included a break-in at the office of Ellsberg’s psychiatrist, as they sought desperately to find whatever they could to use against him. This particular operation, which had been approved by White House staffer John Ehrlichman, had been orchestrated by E. Howard Hunt and G. Gordon Liddy — the two men who would soon after also burglarize the DNC offices in the Watergate complex, and touch off the much-larger scandal.

Photo credit: dbking.

Today’s game at Fenway against the Angels (cached) was so horrifically bad, that I’m forced to post this. The question that leaps to my mind, right now, is a brief and obvious one:

What the fuck?

Seriously. I mean it. I want to know. What the fuck is wrong with the Red Sox?

After today’s game, the team with the second-largest payroll in the major leagues has an astounding 14-17 record and is in fourth place, out of five teams, in the American League East division (cached).

The entire team roster is a laundry-list of mediocrity, inconsistency, and underperformance. I had considered providing a detailed, statistically-backed list of examples of underperformance and incompetence, but that would make this post far too long to be helpful. True, there have been a few flashes of brilliance: Josh Beckett pitched a couple of games which will likely prove among the best of his career. Jon Lester had a gem or two, also, as did Daisuke Matsuzaka. Dustin Pedroia had a fairly good hitting streak going a couple weeks ago, where it looked as though there was nothing a pitcher could throw him that he couldn’t hit. Adrian Gonzalez has a decent batting average, but is not hitting for power, which is why the Sox acquired him. But let’s face it, whatever good performances these guys have turned in, have been outweighed by their sags.

About the only guys I can’t really complain about are Jed Lowrie and Jacoby Ellsbury. But Ellsbury’s only batting .270 at the moment, and Lowrie’s hitting streak has screeched to an abrupt halt … so even those two bright spots on the team, aren’t as bright as they could have been.

On the down side, Kevin Youklis and Carl Crawford have been just-plain-useless all year. Bobby Jenks has been a joke. J.D. Drew has been, well, J.D. Drew … and that’s not saying a lot. John Lackey is horrifically bad. The situation at catcher, a Jarrod Saltalamacchia and Jason Varitek platoon, is quickly becoming the joke of the American League, with runners stealing bases against them almost at will.

The team itself has downplayed and dismissed their pathetic display of amateurish baseball, saying basically that an MLB season is a full 162 games and they haven’t all been played, so things will work out just fine. And their willing collaborators in the New England sports media have essentially gone along with this Pollyannic, “everything-will-be-all-right, we’re-not-worried” crap.

Well, this lifelong follower of the Red Sox is no longer buying that steaming load of outrageous bullshit. As I post this, almost 1/5 of the season has been played. In a competitive division like the AL East, they cannot afford to keep up this level of underperformance. To be close to the AL cellar is just not acceptable at this point. They need to climb out, and climb out now — and then stay out, if they have any hope at getting into the playoffs.

We can debate all day which aspect of play has put the Red Sox in their present condition. Is it the pitching? The batting? Yes, all the pitchers have, at one time or another, failed to do well. Yes, the batters are congenitally unable to drive in runners (leaving the bases loaded is something the Sox manage to almost every game, sometimes more than once; they lead baseball in LOBs). But the answer is that the Sox have flopped in every single aspect of play. There is no one root cause for this condition; their failure is systemic and pervasive.

This suggests that major changes across the entire team … maybe including the coaching staff … are required in order to make things better. Unfortunately the Sox are led by Terry Francona. He’s as clever a manager as has ever run an MLB team, but so far he’s proven to be the “players’ manager” we’ve known him to be, unwilling to make any of the major changes needed to really improve the Red Sox. He shifts guys around in the batting order (always carefully preserving that left-right-left thing he’s so obsessed with), given a guy a day off here or there … but honestly, what the fuck good has any of that done? Early today he put a couple of anemic relievers on the disabled list and called up a couple of replacements from triple A Pawtucket, but that’s the biggest move he’s made, and this afternoon’s game proved it’s not sufficient. (If anything, getting beaten at home by a score of 11-0 shows they’re even worse than they were before.)

I’m no fan of Dr Phil, but a question he often asks is one that desperately needs to be asked of Francona and company: “How’s that workin’ for ya?” Obviously the little batting-order tweaks, the pats on the back after someone stranded men on base for the third time in a game, the occasional days off — they’re just not working. But no one in Boston seems to know or care that they aren’t.

The bottom line is that, while they occasionally admit to some “frustration,” the Red Sox — including players and staff — are simply not cognizant of how truly awful they are. Until they finally admit it, and decide to change things for the better — and I mean, really change them, substantially — they’re on track to end the season under 500. And there’s no legitimate reason for a team with the Red Sox payroll, to end up that way.

Update: As of last night, the Red Sox season is over, and I’ve posted my assessment of this ridiculous excuse for a team in the wake of its monumental collapse. Sadly, I was proven right when I said their terrible start to the season would, ultimately, cost them dearly.

It is unknown where Sense of Humor was born. It spent its youth traveling widely, but without notice, until it was first studied by the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle. Afterward, Humor enjoyed a celebrated career around the world, bringing joy to literally-uncountable numbers of people in equally-countless venues around the globe, through all of subsequent history. But Sense of Humor had endured criticism during the last few years over being too harsh, insensitive, and irreverent, and this sent it into a melancholy tailspin from which it never recovered.

Sense of Humor leaves behind a sour and intolerant populace, incapable of finding enjoyment in anything, and unwilling to let anyone else find enjoyment, either. Humor’s spouse, Mirth and Merriment, suffers from the same lethargy which afflicted Sense of Humor, and is currently on life support. The Comedy family is not expected to survive the year.

Calling hours will not be held, since gathering to remember Humor fondly may bring forth too many funny memories, which will soon be outlawed, and no memorial service is planned, since no one apparently is going to mourn Humor’s passing.

Update: Additional nails were hammered into the coffin of the barely-cold Sense of Humor, when comedian Gilbert Gottfried was fired by insurance company Aflac from his job as the voice of the company’s duck mascot (cached). Gottfried’s offense was to have sent out a few jokes via Twitter, based on the recent Japanese earthquake.

If you click on a link in one of my blog entries, and don’t get what I’ve described, try the cached version.

Hopefully you’ll agree this will improve this blog and ensure you will be able to see what I’m referring to in my own articles. Thank you.

Brooke Shields Has Hypotrichosis

Oh no! Brooke Shields used to have stringy, stick-figure eyelashes! I figured this out after watching Consumer Reports’ video dissection of a new commercial for Latisse, the glaucoma medication that has been rebranded as an expensive, temporary eyelash enhancer with side effects.

The referenced video is below, for your perusal:

I absolutely agree that Allergan taking a glaucoma medication and marketing it (with a large enough budget to pay for Brooke Shields!) for another — completely-frivolous — purpose, is flat-out ridiculous, if not irresponsible … it’s not as though insurance, Medicare or Medicaid are going to pay for a merely-cosmetic use of a product this expensive.

1. The media picked up early reports without making even the slightest effort to confirm what was happening … even though the Heene family are pathological attention-lovers and their word cannot be trusted

2. Officials also took this report on its face and plunged ahead with search and rescue efforts — including nearly launching a plan to drop onto the balloon — without going to the house to find out if the child was there after all

3. The mass media and local officials are still in denial that they were duped by this family … when quite obviously, this had been a hoax right from the start (as the boy himself admitted)

4. Officials still do not know how much their overblown search and rescue effort cost, and still have no plans to try to recover those expenses

Other examples of stupidity here: Naming your son “Falcon”? Stupid. Naming your wife “Ninjawife”? Juvenile. Calling Hillary Clinton a “reptilian”? Asinine.

Need I say more?

Lesson to Americans: Next time you hear something stupid from a suspicious source, treat it as suspicious. OK?

Howard Kurtz at the Washington Post lays out the narrative of this feud. He exposes the vast immaturity and bone-headed stubbornness of both of these guys, their production staffs, and the networks they work for. I will leave the details of this inexcusable dust-up to Kurtz, rather than quote it here … there are too many incidents for me to go into each of them here.

Suffice it to say that both of these guys are being sanctimonious pricks. Each believes he possesses the moral authority and mandate to drive the other off the air. All attempts at trying to mitigate the childishness of their feud, have collapsed under the weight of this perceived moral authority (e.g. Olbermann believed, after the assassination of Dr Tiller, that he no longer needed to live up to their previous accord negotiated by their bosses).

Please, if anyone knows what useful purpose is served by the childish antics and hyperbolic sanctimoniousness of either O’Reilly or Olbermann, please tell me … because I’m not seeing it. I suggest that, instead of trying to reach some kind of gentleman’s agreement between their two networks, Immelt and Ailes should hire a couple of reality-show nannies to reparent these two overgrown children — and if needed, spank them until they grow the hell up.

Normally a spelling bee wouldn’t be something I report on. It just happens that the one that recently concluded included a reference to the early history of Christianity, something I’m an aficionado of (this report is by CNN):

Thirteen-year-old Kavya Shivashankar of Olathe, Kansas, spelled “laodicean,” Thursday night to take top honors in the 82nd annual Scripps National Spelling Bee.

The eighth-grader won $40,000 in cash and prizes for nailing the final word. Pronounced lay-odd-uh-see-an, the word means lukewarm or indifferent, particularly in matters of politics or religion.

This obscure English word comes from the name of a city in Anatolia, Laodicea. The association between this city and indecision or indifference is a result of the book of Revelation, specifically the letter Jesus dictated to the church in Laodicea, which is contained therein (Revelation 3:14-22). In it, Jesus accuses that church of being apathetic:

I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot; I wish that you were cold or hot. So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth. (Rev 3:15-16).

Hence, anyone who’s apathetic … particular in religion … is “Laodicean” or “like the Christians of the church of Laodicea.”

Interestingly there is some Christian legend about an epistle written by Paul to the Laodicean church, first known by way of a reference in the epistle to the Colossians (in Colossians 4:16 to be precise). Exactly what this letter was, is unknown, especially since the epistle to the Colossians that first mentioned it, was itself not written by Paul but was an early- to mid-2nd century document. A forgery mentioning a document is not exactly the best testimony to its existence!

The Marcionites — an early quasi-Gnostic and therefore non-orthodox sect which, for a time, had a large following in Anatolia and in the central Empire — had an epistle of Paul to the Laodiceans, but its contents have since been lost. There is also a very-brief epistle of Paul to the Laodiceans, which exists only in Latin and not in Greek, Coptic, Aramaic, or any other language used by early Christians. As a document it was considered inconsequential and for the most part never accepted as canonical. In modern times there have been “Epistles to the Laodiceans” written as religious literature.

Let’s be blunt, this year’s Bosox were not the World Series winners of last year. Many of the big names who had been responsible for last year’s success, did not do as well, this time around. The newer guys who were called upon to fill the gap certainly tried valiantly, but just could not fill it completely.

The 2008 season:

Bay: As a replacement for Ramirez, what a deal! Sure, you give up a home-run machine … but in return you get a decent hitter who can actually field the ball, and who doesn’t fake injuries, mouth off to the press like a whiny kid, or push middle-aged people around (literally). Ramirez did great for the Dodgers, to be sure … but that was in the NL West, not exactly a bastion of challenging baseball. Bay, on the other hand, improved his batting performance when he left the Pirates for the much-tougher AL East. If that doesn’t show you what he’s made of, I don’t know what will.

Pedroia: 2008 may turn out to be his “career season,” but then again, it may turn out to be a sign of much more to come. Either way he excelled all-around. If he isn’t named the AL MVP, there is no justice.

Ellsbury: What happened to this once-promising rookie? He’s a great outfielder, but suffered several long batting droughts. He’s not going to be much good if he keeps that trend up. He’s a future hall-of-famer, if he can be more consistent with the bat.

Pitching — Sox pitching was not what you’d call stellar in the last half of the season. There’s a reason the Rays took the lead in the AL East at mid-season and held it for months, and that reason was the Sox pitchers. While Lester had a no-hitter and ended the season with a great ERA, he had difficulty in the ALCS and ended up the losing pitcher, twice. Something happened to Beckett late in the season; I have no idea what, nor does anyone else, aside from some Sox talk about him sleeping wrong on his arm (huh?). Buchholz fell completely apart and was nothing like the guy who threw a no-hitter last year in his second MLB outing, although like a trouper he endured a “rehab” trip down to the minors and ended up back there. Masterson successfully converted from a starter to reliever and possibly a closer. Matsuzaka won many more games than he had any right to, given the number of hits and walks he gave up.

Injuries/Illnesses — In this department the Sox were a sad tale of woe, although aside from Ramirez’s non-injured knee(s), no one was to blame. (The jury is out on Beckett’s arm, since we don’t know what happened to it, or even if anything did.) The season got off to a poor start when a number of Sox players brought some sort of flu back with them from their early games in Japan. Ortiz’s wrist was a real setback for the Big Papi, he wasn’t quite the same after returning. It turns out Lowell was dealing with a hip problem nearly all season; only in the last few weeks did it prevent him from playing. (That Lowell played hurt only made Ramirez’s injury-fakes all the more reprehensible.) Drew’s back put him out of commission, and Lugo was sidelined from mid-season on by his own injury. There’s no doubt that, had the Bosox not been as banged-up as they were, things might well have turned out differently.

Looking forward to 2009, by functional area:

Catching — Things are rocky behind the plate for the Sox. Varitek is nearly as good a defensive catcher as there is in baseball, but his bat is anemic. He was effective in leadership and in calling pitches, but sometimes the pitchers were not able to deliver what he called. His free agency creates a problem for the Sox; he’s not worth getting into a bidding war over, but the alternative, relying on Cash, is not an attractive option either. Cash is good, but not that good, nor is he experienced enough to replace Varitek as a pitch-caller and leader. The best we can hope for is to keep Varitek another year at a modest salary, have him pick up his batting, and keep grooming Cash to replace him.

Infield — The Sox are looking good here. Youkilis is a great fielder and a very good hitter; moreover, he’s not old enough to be declining in his career. Both of these are even more true of Pedroia, who is younger still and may well even improve. Lowrie had his moments and should do well next year. Lowell, who just had surgery, was out for a few stretches of time in 2008; while his surgery suggests he’ll be back next year, one can only hope he’s as good as he was.

Outfield — Another place the Sox look good. Bay is a much better fielder than Ramirez; Crisp and Ellsbury are true athletes; and Kotsay and Drew aren’t shabby either. Their bats are not consistent, though; they all run hot and cold at times (some more than others … Bay was probably more consistent than the rest). Drew’s back may also be a problem in 2009; we can only guess how much he’ll do.

Pitching — Lester is young and I expect he will prove better in 2009. As for the rest? I don’t know. I really don’t. Matsuzaka’s tendency to load the bases is probably going to get him into trouble next year; Wakefield is getting old; and Beckett … well … I have no idea what the hell happened with him. Masterson and Papelbon are promising and will continue their success. Hopefully whatever it was that derailed Buchholz will work itself out. Aside from a few bright spots like Masterson and Papelbon (and hopefully Buchholz), Bosox pitching in 2009 doesn’t look to be all that great.

Hitting — The Sox have some of the best hitters in baseball and for the most part they promise to do well again next year … with a few exceptions. Ortiz did not crank out the homers like he used to, not even before his injury (he had a long hitting drought in April). And Ellsbury was inconsistent. Hopefully spring training will straighten him out.

Competition — The Sox are in what is easily the most competitive division in the MLB. This doesn’t look to change any time soon. 2008 was an off-year for the Yankees; do not assume they won’t come roaring back in 2009. The Rays had an unusual year, and may not prove equal to it in 2009, but they certainly won’t be the AL doormats again. The Blue Jays had an excellent second half under their un-retired winning manager Gaston; if he stays with them instead of retiring again, expect them to be in the upper ranks of the league, too.

The Bottom Line for the Red Sox in 2009:

The Sox have a great outfield and an even better infield, and they have some decent hitters. But they have problems in pitching and catching, and it’s there, in the battery, that games are won or lost. This is even more of a liability in such a competitive division. Barring an unexpectedly wonderful acquisition, or the miraculous collapse of a competitor or two, don’t expect the 2009 Red Sox even to equal their 2008 record. Their final record will be 83-79 at best.