Kids, Injuries and Line Up Thoughts

[klaiggeb]

Working on the assumption that Pence will not be back until next week, and that Belt is out for 2 weeks, the line up needs to adjusted.

We only have ONE hitter who can protect Posey even a little bit, power wise, and that's Crawford.

Parker simply is NOT ready for that much responsibility.


Here's my lineup vs LHP

Span
Panik
Tomlinson-LF
Posey-1B
Crawford
Duffy
Blanco-RF
Brown-C


VS RHP

Span
Panik
Tomlinson-1B
Posey
Crawford
Duffy
Parker-LF
Blanco-RF


Now to be clear: Tomlinson is NOT, repeat NOT my ideal choice for the 3 hole.

No how, no way.

But right now, we're in a tough spot.

And Kelby? Well... he gets the bat on the ball, gets on base at a nice clip, and he can run and bunt and H/R.

Are only 'real' run producers are Posey and Crawford, and had Belt and Pence NOT gone down, 4 games ago I would have installed Crawford in the 3 spot as I was of, and partially still am, of the opinion that Duffy, who forced his way INTO the line up last year... was playing his way OUT of the lineup this year.

Then again, today, Duffy looked like the old Duffy, and not, what did that Krukow say that kid call him? Duffy Duck?

Well, THAT'S what he'd been swinging the bat like!

Duffy Duck!

Had Pence and Belt not gone down, this is the line up I was going to suggest 3 or 4 days ago:


Span
Panik
Crawford
Posey
Pence/Belt
Belt/Pence
Parker
Tomlinson-3B


It was and still is my opinion that the line up had stagnated due to some TERRIBLE hitting by:

Duffy
Panik
Posey
And before he got hurt, Belt.

Belt went into the toilet 5 or 6 games back, and he's been chasing crap out of the strike zone and popping up or fouling off pitches he had been driving.

and now this.

Guess it's better now than July or August.

Then again, the pessimist I am (the glass is always 1/2 empty), I find myself asking the question; "how many more injuries are going to pop up and cripple a world series run?"


And where does Adrianza fit into all of this when he's ready?

Or Susac for that matter?

All those questions and we're not even out of May!

boly

[klaiggeb]

It should have read OUR only real...blah blah, blah.

boly

[Rog]

Then again, the pessimist I am (the glass is always 1/2 empty)


Rog -- That's one of the things that makes me wonder why you are so convinced that the Giants are better than the Cubs, even though the relative performance of the two teams strongly suggests just the opposite.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3328/kids-injuries-line-thoughts#ixzz49lvn7FHd

[Rog]

By the way, those lineups don't look bad at all, given how little the Giants have to work with. Tomlinson has certainly been a revelation thus far!

[klaiggeb]

I am a pessimist, Rog, but I also understand baseball, and I think I'm a pretty good elevator of talent.

The pessimist sees more injuries coming and coming quickly.

The baseball-man in me sees THE best Giant team I've ever seen.


The baseball-man sees that we are more experienced and talented than the Cubs.

boly

[Rog]

The baseball-man in me sees THE best Giant team I've ever seen.


Rog -- Better than 2010, 2012 and 2014? Probably. But better than, for instance, 1962? That's a tough sell. Let's compare them.


Rotation:

Bumgarner (6-2), Cueto (7-1) and Samardzija (7-2) have been a better Big Three than Sanford (24-7, Marichal (18-11) and O'Dell (19-14), but when we add Cain (1-5) in 2016 and Pierce (16-6), it gets a lot closer. Slight advantage 2016.


Bullpen:

The 1962 team had Miller, Bolin, Larsen and Duffalo, but today's bullpen put the old bullpens to shame, even though this year's bullpen has been shaky. Clear advantage 2016.


Catcher:

This one shouldn't be close, since Buster Posey is very likely a future Hall of Famer. But the duo of Haller (.899 OPS and Bailey (.827 OPS) have thus far clearly outplayed Buster (.753 OPS). Buster gets the clear nod behind the plate, but Haller was quite good as well. Believe it or not, advantage 1962.


First base:

Although he's having the best start of his career, Brandon Belt (.850 OPS) is having arguably the best season of his career. But somehow he doesn't compare to Hall of Famers Cepeda and McCovey. Huge advantage 1962.


Second base:

Joe Panik is having a down year (.730 OPS), but his glove and bat both give him a clear nod over Chuck Hiller (.675 OPS).


Shortstop:

Jose Pagan (.671 OPS) was decent, but he couldn't hold Brandon Crawford's ..776 OPS bat or his Gold Glove. Clear advantage 2016.


Third base:

Both Matt Duffy and Jimmy Davenport had fine gloves, but Jimmy's .813 OPS blows away Matt's .656. Plus, the Giants had Harvey Kuenn to back up. Clear advantage 1962.


Left field:

A platoon of Kuenn (.799 OPS) and Matt Alou (.739) was better than Angel Pagan (.722). Plus they could stay healthy. Oh, and did I mention Willie McCovey played there too? Clear advantage 1962.


Center field:

Denard Span has done a good job, but he pales in comparison to Willie Mays. Cavenous advantage 1962.


Right field:

Hunter Pence (.862 OPS) is having one of his best seasons, but Felipe Alou (.869 OPS) matched him at the plate and was a better fielder. Tiniest advantage 1962.


Bench: Would we take McCovey, Bailey and Matty Alou or -- well aside from Tomlinson, I'm embarrassed to mention the 2016 guys? Huge advantage 1962.


Overall: The 1962 Giants could pitch and hit. The 2016 team lacks rotation depth and has a shaky bullpen (for today's game). The 1962 team had maulers at the plate, while this year's team has hit decently. This year's team has outscored the opposition by a mere 14 runs. The 1962 team outscored its opponents by 188 runs, or more than a run per game.

It's really tough to argue that this year's team is better, unless one argues with his heart rather than the facts.



Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3328/kids-injuries-line-thoughts#ixzz49rWiBMkG

[Rog]

The baseball-man sees that we are more experienced and talented than the Cubs.


Rog -- Which begs the question as to how the Cubs have outscored their opponents by NINE times as much as the Giants have. What that tells us is that the Giants have beaten their opponents, while the Cubs have obliterated theirs.

The Cubs' rotation is better (deeper) than the Giants. Their bullpen is better. Their bench is better. Their everyday lineup doesn't seem that much better, but it gets on base much more and hits with more power than the Giants. I'm not saying the Giants won't outperform the Cubs in the postseason, when magic sometimes overcomes talent.

The Giants are more experienced than the Cubs. But saying they are better seems to be truly stretching the facts. Thus far this season the Giants have NOT been better -- to the tune about two and a half runs a game.

That's right. The Giants could have both scored a run per game MORE and reduced their ERA by a run, and the Cubs would STILL be better compared to their opponents than the Giants have been. The Cubs have been better so far this season than the Giants, and amazingly it hasn't even been close.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3328/kids-injuries-line-thoughts#ixzz49rlStO2a

[klaiggeb]

Roger, your question is easy to answer.

1-It's only May and we haven't gotten hot yet.

2-The NL Central plays in a ton of band boxes, as I pointed out in another thread.

the Cubs play approximately 120 games in hitter favorable parks.

3-The NL West has 3 pitcher-friendly parks: SF, SF, LA

That means we play 10 games in Arizona, 10 in Colorado, and a handful of others in hitter friendly parks.

I'll be conservative and say we play maybe 35% of our games in hitter friendly parks.

compare that to the Cubs who play roughly 70% of their games in comparable parks.

boly

[klaiggeb]

Rog -- Better than 2010, 2012 and 2014? Probably. But better than, for instance, 1962? That's a tough sell. Let's compare them.


***boly says****

rog, you're REALLY going to compare SEASON TOTAL in 1962 to less than 2 month totals?

No. No way.

Wait until the season is over and then compare numbers.




I'll concede Mays and Cepeda for the 1962 team, but that's where it stops.

Crawford-Pagan? Crawford

Hiller (a one year flash) to Panik-Panik

Davenport (Career year) to Duffy- toss up, but in the long run, I'll take Duffy, and Davey was always one of my favorites.

Posey-Haller/Bailey-Posey. He's better defensively, and not by a little. Bailey didn't throw that well, and Haller was average at best.

Hitting for average, Posey. But I'll give the power numbers to the 1962 guys. Hard to concede that many HRs.

Pence-Alou-Toss up. Alou's arm was stronger, but for other intangibles? It's Pence

Starting staff? 2016 hands down. Not even a question.

Marichal was only in his 2nd full season, and though I was a HUGE Sanford fan, you really can't compare him or O'dell to Cueto or Samardjija

Cain vs Pierce? That was Billy's final hurrah. Cain? Too early to evaluate, but it "looks" like Cain will be the better hands down.



Relief? 2016 hands down. Neither Miller nor Larsen pitched particularly well that year.



Bench-'62. Not even close. McCovey, Matty, and either Bailey or Haller trump anything we have.



Defensively-Team-2016 hands down.

The only better players on that team, defensively, were Mays and Davenport.

Belt is far better than Cepeda, Crawford way better than Pagan, and Hiller, who had rock hands and whom the team had tried to replace, was simply inferior to Panik.

Harvey Kuenn, one of my all time favorites was just adequate in LF. Even Pagan is better in LF.


boly

[Islandboagie]

Rog -- Better than 2010, 2012 and 2014? Probably. But better than, for instance, 1962? That's a tough sell. Let's compare them.

Boagie- The 2010, 2012, and 2014 teams were better than the 1962 team. The 1962 team choked, the others didn't.

[Rog]

I'll concede Mays and Cepeda for the 1962 team, but that's where it stops.


Rog -- You're going to take Pagan in left field -- over Kuenn, Matty Alou and McCovey? And the 2016 bench over 1962? I can understand your arguments elsewhere, but in those areas?

But let's get to the crux of the situation. If this year's team is truly better, why have they outscored their opponents by only 14 runs, while the 1962 team outscored their opponents by 188? The first differential says luck, while the second says excellence.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3328/kids-injuries-line-thoughts#ixzz49tHu94gI

[Rog]

The only better players on that team, defensively, were Mays and Davenport.


Rog -- I think Duffy may actually be better than Davenport defensively, believe it or not. Certainly Duffy is close. Alou was probably better than Pence. Felipe was good enough to play center field, while Hunter is just an average right fielder. Other than when Matty Alou was in left, this year's Giants enjoyed the defensive advantage at all the positions not mentioned here IMO. And the Giants are pretty good in left this year when Blanco is there too.

Overall, I would take this year's defense by a lot.


Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3328/kids-injuries-line-thoughts#ixzz49tJ93fFL

[Rog]

rog, you're REALLY going to compare SEASON TOTAL in 1962 to less than 2 month totals?


Rog -- Given that as far as actual performance to compare, that's all we have, what would you suggest? I could estimate the totals for the rest of the season, but that would be a little subjective, wouldn't it?

Here's a prediction I'll make: The 2016 Giants won't outscore their opponents by 188 runs as the 1962 team did.

[Rog]

Starting staff? 2016 hands down. Not even a question.

Marichal was only in his 2nd full season, and though I was a HUGE Sanford fan, you really can't compare him or O'dell to Cueto or Samardjija

Cain vs Pierce? That was Billy's final hurrah. Cain? Too early to evaluate, but it "looks" like Cain will be the better hands down.


Rog -- I understand your point, but it's a lot closer than you think. This year's starters have a 3.62 ERA, which does nose out 1962's starting staff's 3.74.

As for comparing Sanford and O'Dell to Cueto and Samardzija, that pair didn't have the same seasons Cueto and Samardzija are having, but if we look at their careers, the ERA's are Cueto 3.25, O'Dell 3.29, Sanford 3.69 and Samardzija 3.99. Not a huge difference, and in fact, the pair of O'Dell and Sanford had a lower ERA than Cueto and Samardzija. Cueto and Samardzija enjoy a tremendous advantage so far, but it's safe to say their ERA's will likely be a fair amount higher by season's end too.

Here's the big question though. Do you truly believe that Cain will be better than Pierce's 1962 season "hands down?" I hope you're right, since that would make the Giants formidable. Let's not forget that Pierce went 16-6 with a 3.49 ERA. You think Matt is going to exceed that "hands down?"

As was originally stated, when we compare the top three in the rotations, 2016 thus far compares very favorably. But neither Cain nor Jake Peavy has pitched anywhere close to Pierce in 1962.

By the way, Billy is considered by some to be one of the most underrated pitchers of all time. He wound up his career with a 211-169 record, a 3.27 ERA and a 119 ERA+. Don Drysdale went 209-166 with a 2.95 ERA and a 121 ERA, and made the Hall of Fame. Drysdale had the advantage of pitching in Dodger Stadium. His won-loss record and ERA+ are very close to those of Pierce.

Don made the Hall of Fame, while Billy never got more than 1.7% of the vote. That's a shame. Drysdale may have been a little better, but it wasn't a night and day difference. Don pitched in a better park and more limelight.

I'll bet O'Dell's 3.29 career ERA surprised you a bit too. Billy's ERa was 3.51 as a starter.

The Giants took three big steps toward their 1962 pennant when they acquired O'Dell for Jackie Brandt, and received both Pierce and Don Larson for next to nothing.


Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3328/kids-injuries-line-thoughts#ixzz49tPV7irx

[Rog]

The 2010, 2012, and 2014 teams were better than the 1962 team. The 1962 team choked, the others didn't.


Rog -- You have the gift of youth, Boagie, but that meant you weren't around to watch the Giants in 1962. When you say they choked, you aren't even close to the truth.

For starters, they came from four games behind with seven games left to force a three-game playoff with the Dodgers. They tied the thing up on the final day of the regular season, when Willie Mays hit a solo home run to left field off Turk Farrell to beat the Astros 2-1.

They then came from behind to beat the Dodgers, 6-4 in the final playoff game, scoring four runs in the ninth inning, which they entered trailing 4-2.

No, they didn't quite come from behind the Yankees and lost the seventh game of the World Series, but it wasn't for a lack of trying.

They trailed in the final game of the World Series too, entering the bottom of the ninth with a 1-0 deficit. But Matty Alou not surprisingly beat out a drag bunt pinch hitting for pitcher Jack Sanford. Both his brother Felipe and Chuck Hiller struck out, but Willie Mays doubled down the right field line. If the Candlestick field hadn't still been soft from the torrential rains that delayed the series for three days, the speedy Alou would have scored. But a fine defensive play by Roger Maris kept the ball from going all the way to the wall, and Alou was correctly held at third.

That decision appeared to be a great one when Willie McCovey hit a line drive just a pitch or two after hitting a foul drive out of the park. The line drive stayed well fair, but it ended up in the thankful glove of Yankees second baseman Bobby Richardson. McCovey's scorcher should have given the Giants their first World Series win in San Francisco.

That would have to wait until 48 years later. But not because the Giants choked. You're talking Giants heresy here, Boagie.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3328/kids-injuries-line-thoughts#ixzz49tWvDJjG

[Islandboagie]

That's all fantastic, but in the end they still choked, at home no less.

I know you old fellers like pretend like everything was better back in your day, but in this case it wasn't. You didn't walk uphill in the snow both ways to and from the ballpark, and the Giants were always bridesmaids, not brides. The Dodgers pitching staff routinely chewed up and spit out the "great" Giants teams of the 50's, 60's and 70's. They were a joke. If they played in today's game those teams would be blown up, Mays, McCovey and Marichal would be sent elsewhere for prospects that wouldn't choke.

The 3 best teams in the San Francisco era are the 2010, 2012 and 2014 Giants, period.

[klaiggeb]

Sorry, boagie, but that's just not true.

The 1962 Giants were THE best in the SF era.

I've seen all of them.

2010 isn't even close

Neither is 2012.

The 62 Giants did NOT choke against the Yankees.

That was one GOOD team in NY!

Or have you forgotten the shot McCovey hit to end the game?

That's not choking, that's bad luck.

boly

[sfgdood]

The 2003 team was damn good. So was the '93 team that won 103 games and missed the playoffs because Colorado couldn't win one damn game all year against the Bravos.

[Islandboagie]

Boly- 2010 isn't even close

Neither is 2012.

Boagie- I knew I'd get a reaction from my post, which is partly why I did it.

Cepeda, Mays, McCovey were all great. But I thought we're discussing a TEAM, not star power. No question the '62 Giants were heavy in star power, and a good team, but not as good a TEAM as the 2010, 2012 or 2014 Giants.

#1, Bruce Bochy is a big factor, and he is a part of the TEAM.

#2, pitching wins Championships.

ERA

2010: 3.36
2012: 3.68
2014: 3.50
1962: 3.79

WHIP

2010: 1.271
2012: 1.275
2014: 1.169
1962: 1.301

The 1962 Giants were the worst of the 4 pitching staffs.

Defense you ask?

Fielding %

2010: .988
2012: .981
2014: .984
1962: .977

Again, the 1962 team comes in last in a pretty Significant category judging a TEAM.

You were saying something about it not being close?

OK, the '62 team was the best offensively, and in that category you're right about it not being close.

But as a TEAM? Is it starting to look closer? We've established that the '62 Giants were the worst of the 4 teams in both pitching and fielding.

In my opinion pitching and fielding are crucial in winning Championships.

Thus, why the '62 choked, and why the 2010, 2012 and 2014 teams prevailed.

I would have thought we'd realize what it takes to be a good TEAM by now since we've seen both sides of the coin. One side seems much shinier to me, and apparently only me.

[Rog]

That's all fantastic, but in the end they still choked, at home no less.


Rog -- You would call hitting a sharp line drive with game seven of the World Series choking? Then again, that Willie McCovey guy was indeed a choker of the highest magnitude. Same with Willie Mays.

By the way, did you know that Mays batted three times that season and postseason with the chance it would be his last at bat -- and homered to left, singled up the middle and doubled to right?




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3328/kids-injuries-line-thoughts#ixzz49xiHRKif

[Rog]

I would have thought we'd realize what it takes to be a good TEAM by now since we've seen both sides of the coin. One side seems much shinier to me, and apparently only me.


Rog -- I think almost everyone here agrees with you, Boagie, but if this year's Giants team truly winds up being better than the 1962 team, their run differential will be many, many times the 11 runs it is now.

In fact, I started the comparison by position. Perhaps that was wrong of me. It was the 1962 TEAM that was better than this year's squad thus far.


Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3328/kids-injuries-line-thoughts#ixzz49xjJWBxV

[klaiggeb]

We were talking 'team,' boagie, but if you didn't see that group play, you really have nothing to compare it to.

Yes, 2010,2012, and 2014 were much, much better on the mound.

But that 62 team had power out the wally-wally, and hit for a higher average than ANY of our WS winning teams.

That year the Dodgers were freaking outstanding!

Koufax, Drysdale, and Podres were a mean top three.

And in the pen, though they were called Short Relievers, they had 3 guys who could close.

Roebuck, Sherry and Perronoski.

They were fast beyond belief, and that team speed, especially Wills and Willie Davis, really effected the way teams pitched and played them.

They were solid in the line up 1-7, with the only real hole being Burright or Spence or Wally Moon, when Tommy Davis butchered... I mean played, 3B.

To beat THOSE guys you HAD to be really good.

We won in triple digits, and darned near beat an outstanding NY Yankee team.


Believe me, boagie, 1962... that was an outstanding team.


Go back and read the history. Those PLAYERS thought they were set for years to come.

Then the bottom fell out.

Pagan and Hiller never panned out.

Felipe struggled so much the next year, he was shipped off to the Braves for pitching.

Kuenn got old and quick, Matty Alou declared that he wanted to be a HR hitter like his brother Felipe, and into the toilet he went.

Davenport never again touched the numbers he did in 1962, Sanford began having arm problems and things kept getting progressively worse.

Add to that TERRIBLE owner ship, and not very good managers... and there went the potential dynasty.

But for that ONE year... that O N E year... They were something else.

boly

[Islandboagie]

I'm sure they were great, right up until the part where they choked in the World Series.

The Giants of 2010, 2012 and 2014 and now ARE a dynasty. It's not comparable. I would take the core players from those teams over Mays, McCovey, Cepeda, and Marichal because they don't choke, they win.

The best way to judge teams and players from different eras is to compare them to their peers. Before 2010, no San Francisco Giants team could ever be considered the best amongst their peers. Whereas in 2010, 2012 and 2014 the Giants were the last team standing.

[Islandboagie]

Rog -- You would call hitting a sharp line drive with game seven of the World Series choking?

Boagie- Getting shutout in the 7th game of the World Series in your home ballpark? Absolutely.

[donk33]

May 28, 2016 12:25:11 GMT -5 Islandboagie said:

I'm sure they were great, right up until the part where they choked in the World Series.

The Giants of 2010, 2012 and 2014 and now ARE a dynasty. It's not comparable. I would take the core players from those teams over Mays, McCovey, Cepeda, and Marichal because they don't choke, they win.

The best way to judge teams and players from different eras is to compare them to their peers. Before 2010, no San Francisco Giants team could ever be considered the best amongst their peers. Whereas in 2010, 2012 and 2014 the Giants were the last team standing.


dk...don't you think it would make more sense to consider what the teams did during the regular season as well as the post season....the Giants were 2nd best in 2010 during the regular season, in 2012 they were the 4th best team in the league...2014, they were the 5th best..... the Giants of 1962 had to be the best in the regular season to lose by a run in the WS....

[Islandboagie]

Don- the Giants were 2nd best in 2010 during the regular season, in 2012 they were the 4th best team in the league...2014, they were the 5th best....

Boagie- Huh?

I'm not sure what these rankings are referring to. I'm assuming you mean in the NL. But if that's the case you were correct on 2010, but wrong about 2012 and 2014. The Giants finished with the 3rd best record in the NL in 2012, and they were tied for the 4th best record in the NL in 2014.

But you do make a good point, Don, despite it being laden with errors.

Baseball has changed since the 50's and 60's. It's more competitive now. We see less dynasties and less obvious perennial all-stars and future hall of famers. Which makes the Giants run even more impressive.

Not every division has teams to beat up on, whereas some still do. We often look at the top 2 or 3 teams to determine if a division is strong or weak. We've had the Padres number this season, but how many times over the years have they played us hard? The Padres recently swept a doubleheader against the Cubs. Colorado plays us hard every time.

In 2010 for example the NL West had 3 teams with winning records, whereas the NL East and Central only had 2. Can we really determine the best team by just how they play against their own division? The Giants had a winning record against the Phillies that season who wound up with the best overall record because they beat up on their own division. Just because you beat up on your own division more than the other division leaders did, doesn't make you the best.

We need something more to determine who the best is, which is why we have the post-season. I know a lot of stat geeks out there discredit the post-season as a crap shoot, but proving who the best is on the field in a playoff atmosphere is the best and only way. That's why every sport does it, and why they've been doing it for a long time now.

The '62 Giants were a good team, with a lot of stars, were they the best in baseball? I think the Yankees proved they weren't, didn't they? Or was that just luck?

I'm glad I don't have that outlook on baseball, I think it would be hard to watch the games if I thought luck played such a big role in it.

[Rog]

The 3 best teams in the San Francisco era are the 2010, 2012 and 2014 Giants, period.


Rog -- There are certain things people add to a statement if they're lying. Similarly, I've found that adding "period" to an opinion usually means that my mind is made up, don't confuse me with the facts.

Given how important the postseason tournament is considered to be, I would go along with "most successful," but "best" certainly leaves open a little discussion, not a "period."




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3328/kids-injuries-line-thoughts#ixzz4A47RpPXw

[Rog]

Rog -- You would call hitting a sharp line drive with game seven of the World Series choking?

Boagie- Getting shutout in the 7th game of the World Series in your home ballpark? Absolutely.


Rog -- "Absolutely" is another of those "don't bother me with the facts, my mind is made up" words.

In this case, you're looking at less than half the picture. For starters, the Giants gave up just one run. Boly makes the statement that the 2016 Giants rotation is "hands down" the better of the two, yet I'll bet if the Giants make the World Series this year and it goes to game 7, he's take one run yielded in a heartbeat.

As for the Giants' being shut out, they were shut out by Ralph Terry, who lead the American League in wins and likely would have been the AL Cy Young Award winner if league winners had existed back then. That certainly doesn't excuse the shutout, but it places the shutout in better perspective.

Willie Mays' was robbed by a double down the left field line in the seventh inning, or the Giants would have tied the game after Willie McCovey's triple.

Earlier in McCovey's fateful ninth-inning at bat, he came close to winning the game 3-1 with a homer down the right-field line that instead went foul.

Then McCovey lined out to end the game. The ball was hit much harder than Bobby Thomson's "Shot Heard 'Round the World" that knocked the Dodgers out of the 1951 playoff. Harder still than the so-called Chinese home run hit by Dusty Rhodes for a walk-off win in the first game of the 1954 World Series.

As an aside, those who don't believe luck has something to do with a lot of wins are just kidding themselves. Luck certainly isn't the only factor, but it's often a significant one.

You weren't around back in 1962, Boagie, and I doubt you have studied up on the season, so it is understandable you weren't aware of some of the factors. But before you say a team "choked," you might want to acquaint yourself with them.

If we want Giants history, Don's our guy. Boly and I are sometimes be helpful in that regard too. And there are books and articles out there that can help out as well.

That loss in the seventh game of the 1962 World Series is one of the most devastating in Giants history. But they didn't choke. They were simply outplayed and/or outlucked




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3328/kids-injuries-line-thoughts#ixzz4A48QGrFp

[Islandboagie]

Just because I threw a "period" in there doesn't mean I'm not interested in hearing the other side of the argument, even if it won't change my opinion. And in my opinion, a regular season record, or run differential isn't any more of a fact than a trophy in a glass case is in proving who the best was or is. Run differential doesn't even guarantee a playoff birth.

[klaiggeb]

I think the run differential thing is interesting, but, as with this Giant team, it can be taken out of context, as boagie, I think it was, pointed out.

The more pertinent, and IMHO, accurate stat would be; what's the run differential when Bumgarner, Cueto, and Samardiza pitches.

Now normally, I wouldn't feel that way, but in this instance, I do, because most # 4 and 5 starters for most clubs didn't stink as bad as Peavy and Cain did.

When you've got 2 starters with ERAs north of 6.00, that run differential stat gets thrown out the window because it's misleading.

Now, on the other hand, it would be pertinent IF this was August or September and we STILL had guys with ERAs on the north side of 6.00

But now?

Nope.





boly