Craig Breslow error: Another World Series Bill Buckner moment for Red Sox?

David Ortiz seemed to put the Boston Red Sox in position for a huge win in Game 2 of the World Series. Then Sox reliever Craig Breslow had a moment of madness in the seventh.

Robert Deutsch/USA TODAY
St. Louis Cardinals Jon Jay (19), Matt Carpenter (13), and Pete Kozma (38) celebrate after Kozma and Jay scored as Boston Red Sox relief pitcher Craig Breslow (l.) and catcher Jarrod Saltalamacchia look on during the seventh inning of Game 2 of the World Series at Fenway Park.

Perhaps it wasn't as traumatic, but the Boston Red Sox added a memorable new error to their Bill Buckner collection in losing Game 2 of the World Series to the St. Louis Cardinals, 4-2, Thursday night.

When Buckner booted a routine grounder in Game 6 of the 1986 World Series, it took Red Sox Nation 18 years to get over it. Chances are, Boston won't need another 18 years to cope with reliever Craig Breslow's moment of madness in the seventh inning Thursday. But it will certainly take at least until Game 3 Saturday. 

When Breslow decided to throw to third base, the game was tied 2-2 with two out in the seventh and runners on second and third. Not ideal, but hardly game over. A popup, a strikeout, a routine grounder, and they're up in the bottom of the seventh with the game tied.

But after Breslow uncorked a wild throw to third, the game swung irrevocably, as it turned out. Breslow was backing up catcher Jarrod Saltalamacchia because Cardinals pinch-runner Pete Kozma had just scored on a sacrifice fly. The throw home squirted a few feet away from Saltalamacchia and Breslow saw John Jay pelting for third. And the rest is for the commemorative edition World Series videos.

Breslow's sailing throw ended up in the stands, Jay scored, and Daniel Descalso was able to advance to third. When the next batter, Carlos Beltran, singled, Descalso scored and the damage was complete. 

On the surface, it might not seem the most catastrophic of errors. Boston was able to split the first two games against the Cardinals' best starting pitchers – beating Adam Wainwright Wednesday and losing to the masterful Michael Wacha Thursday. That's not so bad. The Sox batters will like their chances against the Cardinals starters in Game 3 and 4.

Yet at the time Breslow's throw sailed into the left field stands, the Red Sox still stood a good chance of putting a headlock on this series.

The cause against Wacha had seemed hopeless for much of the night. As the Detroit Tigers starting pitchers had done in the American League Championship Series, Wacha had made the Sox hitters look like they were chasing butterflies. But as in the Tigers series, the Sox found a moment for the extraordinary. To no one's surprise, it came off the bat of David Ortiz.

The script seemed written, perhaps because it has become so familiar. With one swing, Ortiz did what David Ortiz does ... make postseason history. The ball ended up in the first row of Monster seats, and Dustin Pedroia came around to score in front of him after drawing a one-out walk, giving the Sox a 2-1 lead.

Suddenly, the prospect was real and tantalizing: The Sox could win Games 1 and 2 against the Cardinals' two aces. Sure, the series still hasn't shifted to St. Louis, but a loss by Wacha – who came into the game with a 3-0 postseason record and a 0.43 earned run average – would have been a hammer blow to the Cardinals' chances.

With only three innings left, the Red Sox had their Big 3 relievers in reserve. When Breslow, Junichi Tazawa, and Koji Uehara entered a game, it was supposed to be over – they have been the Sox late-inning padlock. 

Instead, Breslow sprung the lock, and Red Sox will lament a huge opportunity missed. How huge remains to be seen.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.