Skip to main content

World Series

Well, I was wrong. Boston has been great the last two games, largely due to David Ortiz, and the incredible pitching of Jon Lester. I loathe the Red Sox and the fair weather fandom of Red Sox Nation, but as a baseball fan who watches the pitchers closely, it has been an honor to watch Jon Lester pitch. I thought the Cards had chances against him in Game 1, and just missed them. Yes, they were down by 5 after 2 innings that night, but Lester was missing fastball location repeatedly, which is why he had trouble in the third and fourth innings. That game was much tighter than the 8-1 score shows, because the Cardinals are the kind of team that functions on momentum. Last night was different. Lester is making his case to be a Red Sox legend. He didn't miss at all. The Cardinals still had their chances, but it didn't feel like the same sort of game. He's now 4-0 career in the World Series, having only surrendered 1 run, total.

Cards ace Adam Wainwright, for his part, deserved better. Back-to-back doubles in the first rendered a score of 1-0 for the Sox. But he found a groove, recording his first six outs by strikeout. Ironically, it was the inefficient first, followed by his swing-and-miss dominance following (he struck out 10 Sox) that cost him the game. He didn't have a quick inning. He was up over 100 pitches when he surrendered the winning runs in the 7th. Sandy Koufax and Jim Bunning, two Hall of Fame pitchers, were talking (as relayed by Tim McCarver) about pitching inside. Koufax reportedly said, "Show me a guy who pitches inside, and I'll show you a loser." This seems wrong, because if he doesn't pitch inside, the hitter will lock in on the outside of the plate. McCarver--who, God bless him, is a nut-bar--went on to explain that Koufax said that throwing your "out" pitch for a strike on the inside was doing the batter a favor. As Jacoby Ellsbury hit a broken-bat single into center field for the third Boston run after being jammed on the inside, I thought, "Good point."

The series shifts back to Boston with the Red Sox up 3-2, with a chance to win it all. To do it, they'll have to beat young phenom Michael Wacha, who has surrendered only 3 runs in 27 postseason innings. That's an ERA of 1.00. What's even more absurd is that it went up to that number after he gave up a two-run homer to David Ortiz in Game 2. Aside from the obvious Fozzie Bear jokes, his nickname should be "Video Game." Mark it down: Barring injury, this kid might become the greatest pitcher you'll ever see. My respect and hat's off to the Red Sox if they win.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un