|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Sept 16, 2014 12:34:45 GMT -5
On September 17th, 1962, the Dodgers led the Giants by 4 games with 12 left to play.
In those next 12 games, the Giants played the 4th place (88-42 Pirates; the 6th place Cardinals (77-73) and the 8th place Houston Colt-45's (56-91)
To catch the Dodgers, and down by 4 games, you would think the Giants went on a tear to catch LA on the last regular day of the season, and beat them in a best of 3 playoff.
Only that's not what happened.
The Giants LOST 5 of those 12,
1, to Pittsburgh,
2 to St. Louis and
2, to Houston.
6 of those 12 games were against not very good teams... and they lost 4.
What did the Dodgers do?
They lost 9 of 12
2, to the 5th place Braves (79-73)
5, to the 6th place Cardinals (77-73)
2, to the 8 place Colt 45s (56-91)
In terms of difficulty of schedule, the Dodgers had a slight advantage, playing teams with a 212-237 record, as opposed to 221-226 that the Giants were playing.
LA should have won.
They had a much better starting 4, and a much, much better bullpen.
But the didn't.
Not saying it's going to happen again, but that as depressed as I felt last night; as hopeless as it feels right now... it ain't over.
Not much solace, but at least it's something.
boly
|
|
|
|
Post by islandboagie on Sept 16, 2014 14:26:31 GMT -5
The solace is we're still leading the wild card standings. As it sits now, we'd play Pittsburgh at home in a one game playoff. I don't know about you, but I think I'd rather play the Nationals instead of the Cardinals.
And I'd rather the Dodgers play the Cardinals. The Cardinals had their number last year. Even if the Dodgers beat the Cardinals I imagine it would be a hard fought series and their pitching staff will likely be taxed.
If the Cardinals win, we've beat them before in the NLCS.
I dont think that's how it's going to play out though. The baseball gods appear to want this thing to go through the west coast.
|
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Sept 16, 2014 16:21:28 GMT -5
I'd rather play the Cardinals. IMHO, the Nationals have too many weapons both on the mound and at the Plate.
I think they have the best chance to beat LA with Kershaw or Greinke pitching.
But I say again; (I was wrong about Sunday, but I stand by my words); "Kershaw IS DUE, OVER DUE, for some bad games.
Heck, even Koufax, and Gibson had bad days.
Kershaw hasn't had one in a long while.
He's due.
boly
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Sept 17, 2014 9:59:17 GMT -5
Regarding 1962, the Giants' catch up story is even better than you thought, Boly. Entering the last week and one day of the season, the Giants trailed the Dodgers by four games with just SEVEN to play. The Giants won five of the seven, while the Dodgers lost six. Willie Mays' solo shot in the bottom of the 8th off Turk Farrell gave the Giants a 2-1 must-win. As the Candlestick crowd -- waiting for the traditional final game car giveaway at Fan Appreciation Day -- listened to the Dodgers lose to force a three-game playoff.
The previous is from memory, but I think if you check the facts, you will see it is correct. I did double check the most important fact -- that the Giants trailed by four with just SEVEN to play.
It's certainly not over. But the odds certainly don't favor the Giants. Just as the Wild Card race isn't over, but the odds FAVOR the Giants by even more.
|
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Sept 17, 2014 10:11:09 GMT -5
I had forgotten the 4 behind with 7 to go part, but I remembered Mays' HR of Turk.
My entire post was meant to buoy all of our hopes, including mine.
I was almost uncontrollably furious after that 6-2 loss to the Arizona Putz's. So angry that to even relax and have any chance of falling asleep I had to take a Xanex. Something I try not to do so often.
Adding to my anger was some simply bad breaks. Blanco's hit BOUNCING into the stands, Pablo's scorcher to right... taking a nose dive into the fence, which almost knocked the thing over he hit it so hard.
No smart to get angry, I know, but I'm an emotional guy, and NOT being able to do ANYTHING to help, (such as not being able to plant my foot squarely up Bochy's BACKSIDE, drives me crazy.
Sigh...
boly
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Sept 17, 2014 13:36:53 GMT -5
Boly -- Kershaw hasn't had one in a long while.
He's due.
Rog -- How do we know when a guy is "due?" Kershaw was "due" Sunday, yet he pitched a whale of a game. What precisely was he "due" for?
Let me ask you this: Would you rather have a guy pitch for you who is pitching well, even though he is "due?" Or would you prefer the guy who is neither hot nor cold? How about the guy who has been really cold? Isn't he "due" to win one?
Hey, my dad -- who knew the game well enough that he talked to Horace Stoneham on a player's behalf -- often said a player was "due." But that was usually a case of false optimism, of vaguely realistically hope.
|
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Sept 17, 2014 15:19:33 GMT -5
Based upon my statement, Rog, you're question as to who I prefer... is moot.
When I guy reels off 8, 9, eleventeen consecutive good to great starts, HE'S DUE.
It's like a hitter who gets hot.
After a couple of weeks, usually, he's DUE, to come back to earth.
I'm saying he hasn't turned in a stinker in tons of games, and thus, he's due.
boly
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Sept 17, 2014 16:13:54 GMT -5
I guess the question is when it becomes possible, when it becomes likely, when a player is due, and when a player is overdue.
I realize what you're saying. I thought when Joe Panik raised his average to its highest mark on the season that he was due -- and indeed he has slumped. But what about all the other times earlier when we would have said he was due? What about the time we would have said Buster Posey was due to hit a bad spot?
A month or two ago you felt the Giants shouldn't be playing Gregor Blanco. Didn't you realize he was "due." I guess my question is how do we know when a player is due? We said Kershaw was due on Sunday, but apparently he didn't get the message.
How many good games does a guy have and how good do they have to be before he becomes "due" to stumble? How long does a player have to stumble before he becomes "due" to break out of his slump?
My personal thought is that I'll take the hot guy who is "due" over the middle-of-the road guy who isn't. Or even over the guy who has been stumbling and is "due" to break out of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by donk33 on Sept 17, 2014 19:36:14 GMT -5
I guess the question is when it becomes possible, when it becomes likely, when a player is due, and when a player is overdue. I realize what you're saying. I thought when Joe Panik raised his average to its highest mark on the season that he was due -- and indeed he has slumped. But what about all the other times earlier when we would have said he was due? What about the time we would have said Buster Posey was due to hit a bad spot? A month or two ago you felt the Giants shouldn't be playing Gregor Blanco. Didn't you realize he was "due." I guess my question is how do we know when a player is due? We said Kershaw was due on Sunday, but apparently he didn't get the message. How many good games does a guy have and how good do they have to be before he becomes "due" to stumble? How long does a player have to stumble before he becomes "due" to break out of his slump? My personal thought is that I'll take the hot guy who is "due" over the middle-of-the road guy who isn't. Or even over the guy who has been stumbling and is "due" to break out of it. dk...this is the guy that rates a prospect on his BABIP to decide whether he is going to produce or not...  and is always waiting for a guy to regress to his norm.....and Panik is now regressing from his norm....as his norm is pretty high... |
|
and is always waiting for a guy to regress to his norm.....and Panik is now regressing from his norm....as his norm is pretty high...