Bad Luck Giants?

[Rog]

For those who subscribe to the theory that the Giants are doomed for bad luck this season, last night's game can't hurt your resolve.

For those who would like to know, the Giants' odds of winning when last night's game was prematurely ended were considered to be just 18%.  That's almost one in five though, so it would have been nice to at least have received the chance.

[klaiggeb]

rog; Well, that would be me. Just one more inexplicabel, "you've-got-to-be-kidding-me" moment.


But I'll take that 18% over a sure loss.

I think that, had the game picked up where it left off, the odds would have been hugely in our favor since Wada would be out of the game.

he was sharp!

There bullpen is nothing to get excited about. Ours, though at times 'iffy,' has been much better.

Also, I think there would have been a lot of motivation on our side since we're in it, they aren't.

boly

[sfgdood]

sorry I'm still not buying the bad luck theory on this one. The Giants got flat out SCREWED by both the Cubs and by MLB. This was a set of circumstances that just plain screamed out for a suspension even though the rules dont quite state that. Trust me, other teams are watching and saying to their grounds crews, "hey guys, if we're ahead after 4.5 innings and the rain is coming, we want you to screw up the tarp laying as much as possible. With any luck the field will remain unplayable and we'll get a cheap win. Oh and after the rain stops, just send one guy out there with a rake because that's all the Cubs did and they still didn't get a suspension."

As far as the Stats Geek 18% crap, everyone knows those odds change when you have a playoff caliber team playing a last place team using minor leaguers. Factor in the Giants being among the best road teams in baseball, and the odds change even further. But really, the odds don't really matter. It's just WRONG to screw a team out of ANY chance for a win, even if only one out or one strike remains.

[Rog]

The Cubs' bullpen isn't bad. Its ERA in the 2nd half is just 2.86.

As for the motivation, the Giants also had it in the game's first half, and yet were trailing 2-0. They are the better team, so maybe they had a quarter chance of winning.

My point though is that whenever the Giants are beaten by a bad break, we compared the loss to the win they seemingly would otherwise have had. If the bad break cost two runs in a game that was lost by one run, yes, that would indeed be the case. But oft times the Giants would have lost the game with or without the break.

The Giants are presently six games over .500. I see them as a good -- not great -- team that has suffered from injuries. We tend to forget that other teams have injuries too, but the Giants have certainly had more than their share. I don't see a big preponderance of career seasons from the players, and I don't see a lot of particularly poor ones, although the bullpen as a group is likely overachieving a bit. On the other hand, some of the players are having down seasons.

Not surprisingly, I see a team whose depth is easily exposed and which has been vulnerable to the injuries it has sustained. They have gotten a nice performance from their primary off-season acquisition in Morse; they have gotten a nice performance from their primary in-season acquisition in Peavy; and they have gotten a nice performance from their primary minor league replacement in Panik.

In other words, they have had things that have gone right, and things that have gone wrong. The predominant factor would seem to be injuries, and those haven't been insignificant. The top National League teams are the Nationals, the Brewers and the Dodgers. Without any injuries, the Giants might be right up there with them. Of course, those teams have had injuries too, but especially in the case of the Brewers, not as many as the Giants.