Underachieving Boston sports teams, why it's hard to be intelligent and a member of a hockey team, Cal Raleigh makes history, the most difficult sport of all

Saturday 6/21/25

I've heard people on the radio who know nothing about sports and who make a lot of money talking unintelligently and witlessly about sports and who take everything down to a first grade bathroom level (that is, every other line is something like "Goes right up my ass" or "He has a big shmenzer" or "Crapped their pants") say that Brad Marchand winning the Stanley Cup reflects poorly on the Bruins.

It does no such thing. They had to trade him, they shouldn't have resigned him, and all that mattered was moving on from something and what they got back, not what happened once he was gone. Marchand was a problem on the Bruins. He was a bad captain, he's not a front line player anymore, he is petty, Jeremy Swayman's contract got into his head and affected his performance and how he conducted himself, and it was time. He landed in the perfect place for him. If he's smart and cares about winning and relevancy, he'll sign there.

What does reflect poorly on the Bruins is when they fired Bruce Cassidy because a bunch of soft, choking players thought he was too mean, and then Cassidy immediately went out and coached a team to the Cup. Many of those same soft, choking players then got their next coach fired, a guy who was said to be too nice. He then helped turn around a struggling team and got them into the playoffs.

Saw some video today of the Panthers in a club chanting "Fuck McDavid." A lot of these guys are in their thirties. But they're all grown men. Hockey culture is a very hard thing to be a part of if you're intelligent. The group won't accept you in most cases. Goalies often aren't part of the main group anyway, so if you're going to be very intelligent and a hockey player, it's probably best to be a goalie, because then you're not really expected to fit in anyway and the players will think you're weird or eccentric (which hockey players think is a natural goalie thing), though most of them won't know that second word.

Many Bruins fans are saying that because the Panthers won back-to-back Cups and have made it to three Finals in a row that the Bruins' loss to them in 2023 after Boston had won 65 regular season games is less of a choke.

This is wrong. It's the single biggest choke in NHL history. That hasn't changed. The Panthers didn't know what they were yet. They didn't have the confidence and swagger. They were finding it out. To win 65 regular season games--that's an obscene number--and be up 3-1 in a first round series, and lose that series--by losing three games at home--is jaw-dropping. That's an astounding choke. The Bruins were also up with less than a minute to go in Game 7.

I would say that one of the main themes of Boston sports teams is that they underachieve. The Bruins franchise has always underachieved. The Orr-Esposito Bruins only won two Cups. Does anyone--well, allowing that they know anything and can think--believe that's the number of Cups that team should have won, going by their talent? Should have been more like four, right?

How about the Larry Bird Celtics? Don't you think they should have more than three championships? The Celtics had years pre-Bird where they probably shouldn't have won or weren't the pick to win and they found ways to win. Do you know why the Bird Celtics get a sort of pass in this discussion and come off better than maybe they should? It's the 1985-86 season and what that represents to basketball fans, though you now have to say, "basketball fans of a certain age," because people don't know anything about anything they weren't around for when they themselves were over a certain age.

That season has been all-but crowned as this campaign of immaculate basketball, and maybe the best team ever. But it's easier to do that with that Celtics teams because that season is isolated somewhat--it's not the middle championship of a three-peat. I don't know that the Celtics would have beaten the Lakers if the Lakers got to the Finals. You can only play who you play, but still, there's a bit of a shadow of doubt there. As much as it pains me to say this, I think the Lakers were clearly the best team of the 1980s.

The Red Sox? So many years of underachieving. A bunch of those Ted Williams teams were stacked. Look at the late 1940s clubs. And the 1950 Red Sox might have had the best offense in the history of baseball.

The Patriots? Had to judge and football is different. In the other three sports, you have different players, different ages, and yet you're more likely to have consistent themes. It's strange. Not with football, unless it's the Steelers. The Patriots had this unique talent who was better than anyone who's played the game. They won a lot while they had him. That doesn't mean they won't be the worst team in the sport over the next half century. Whereas, I don't think you could be a dynasty in baseball or even just right there every year for twenty years and then a bottom feeder to decades if money isn't an issue. Market and tradition are factors. Market especially. St. Louis is going to find ways to have good baseball teams after some down seasons, for example.

Cal Raleigh homered twice last night and now has 29 home runs on the season, which is the most a catcher has ever had before the All-Star and he'll probably be around 33 or 34 by then. This is a strange season. Raleigh isn't a Hall of Fame catcher, and he won't be even if he hits 55 home runs this year and wins another Gold Glove. Or he shouldn't be. Won't have the career totals and that average is just too low, even though everyone likes to say that average doesn't matter, but of course it does. It matters in baseball at present and it matters for the Hall of Fame.

When doesn't average matter? That is, when can a guy have an abysmal average and continue to be put in the line-up? When he homers a lot. Or walks a lot. But if you hit .217 with no power and your OBP is .263, you won't be an everyday player unless you're on the Rockies or a team in that type of situation or you're a catcher, perhaps, who is reliable defensively.

The Sox took the first game of their series against the Giants out in San Francisco and put some runs up on the board. It'd be nice to see Jarren Duran have a game in which he doesn't strikeout. Seems like it never happens. I wonder how many times it has happened this year. I bet it's no more than five games. Put the bat on the ball, speed guy. Devers went 0 for 5.

People have a need to pick a side. I don't. Devers sucks, the Red Sox front office sucks. If I had to say which is worse, I'd go with the Red Sox' front office. It's like having AI in charge--or, the sports version of an MFA writer/academic with the complete absence of people skills and knowledge, while also being condescending and insufferable.

But Devers is a selfish, childish, overrated load who has never been more than a minor star, despite how he's talked about. Do people not understand the numbers? Why is it that they can't dive into the stats and process what those stats mean? They're not hidden, you don't have to crack some code. You just have to bother to look at them and have some clue what they say.

Mayer and Anthony continue to struggle. The Red Sox sent down Kristian Campbell, which makes them look silly after that press conference earlier in the year in which they stroked themselves off in front of everyone about how brilliant their front office was and touted Campbell's greatness--they actually called him a great player, in the here and now, one made, in large part, by them.

He made the team because of the side of the plate he hit from and because the deal he signed made the service time factors irrelevant. As for his game--I didn't see anything that impressed me, and my biggest reservation may be just how bad Campbell was in the field. A butcher at second base. Get your meats! I tend to think your second basemen needs to be strong defensively. If he's not, he better be hitting 20 home runs and driving in 82 runs.

The Yankees' Anthony Volpe has gone 53 at-bats without a hit, which is a record. Baseball is a hard game. Is it the hardest? I think there's a good argument to be made. I read this anecdote once where Lance Parrish was going so badly at the plate that he practically begged the catcher to tell the pitcher to let him get just one hit--a measly single.

I remember thinking how Parrish wasn't the kind of guy someone would be open to with this. You wouldn't ever be open with anyone, unless it some all-time great in the last at-bat of his career in a game that meant nothing. But I don't know...they all mean something if you're a competitor. Parrish was big and tough and he struck you as this unforgiving type of player. Like linebackers in football strike you as unforgiving.

Needless to say, they opponent didn't acquiesce to Parrish's plea and got him out.