Down by four in the 9th? No problem.
 

Actually, the story last night was down 9 in the 4th, not down 4 in the 9th. But that was football and the Steelers, and they lost anyway.

Wait a second, are you saying that the Steelers lost and the Dodgers won?

Woo hoo! Happy days are here again! Rejoice and be merry.

That game (Dodgers - don't give a rip about the Steelers) was too stressful for me to watch.

Four consecutive homers - holy crud!!!

I turned the game off in the 7th!! :mad:

Un...freaking...believable

Uh, yeah, I heard about it on the news.

While I am a San Diegan, that is one great ending!

How sporting. This is how you react when that happens to your team.

http://tommykingman.ytmnd.com/

What's interesting is that had the Dodgers not given up 3 runs in the top of the 9th, they probably would have lost.

With a 1 run lead, San Diego would have brought in Trevor Hoffman to close the game. The guy's unstoppable. Gagne may have been spectacular before he turned all Dreifort, but he's got nothing on Hoffman. He's 3 saves away from the career record. Until last night he had only blown, I believe, 5 saves in his career against the Dodgers in his 13 seasons. Had he started the 9th with a 1 run lead, forget it.

But with a 4 run lead, it's not a save situation. So they sat Hoffman down and brought in Adkins. When he suddenly gave up 2 home runs in a row, THEN they needed to bring in Hoffman. But, now Hoffman's warmed up, sat down, then quickly warmed up again. A closer is used to a very particular warmup routine. A properly warmed up Hoffman would not have given up those homeruns.

So, in the running for game MVP, honorable mention must be given to Hong-Chih Kuo who gave up the 3 runs in the 9th! :D


ETA: Check that, last night was only the third blown save in 58 attempts for Hoffman against the Dodgers.

In 1926, the Cardinals brought in Grover Cleveland Alexander to seal the deal in a sticky situation against the Yankees in game 7. Alexander was ancient by those standards, he had won his start the night before, and, as legend has it, he was probably hung over. He took care of business.

And David Wells WAS hung over when he pitched his perfect game.

Not saying that interrupted warmup is a guarantee of failure, but history is on the side of a warmed up Hoffman. 53 for 55 is hard to argue with.

:blush:

I love the Pads but, really, that is exciting playing.

I didn't watch the game. Too bad they waited on Hoffman. Are they trying to make the other guy they did bring in the next Trevor? Meaning, make him as important/to be feared/etc.?

Nope. The role of a closer is very specific, they only come in in "save" situations. The definition of a "save" situation is 'If the number of men on base + the next 3 batters is equal to or greater than the lead, then a pitcher that comes in and prevents the other team from tying or leading gets a save."

So with a 4 run lead going into the bottom of the ninth, it's not a save situation, therefore no reason to bring in your closer. Hoffman's old and, apparantly, having some shoulder fatigue. And he made a lot of pitches (for a closer) on Sunday night. So they don't want to use him if they don't have to.

1926??? I think the game has changed enough since then to make this kind of comparison meaningless.

However I would freely speculate that Hoffman's performance (or lack there of) was as much mental as physical. These youngsters have been told over and over again that they are "finely tuned machines" or words to that effect. Eventually it sinks in so that they believe they can only be "on" if they follow their exact warm-up ritual. The players of 1926 were not burdened with this preconceived notion of perfection.

I see...it wasn't a 'save' until those two homeruns?

Poor Trevor. He is still so young but having problems. I like him. Not being a big fan of the game I am a fan of the players and how the fans love them. I have a few friends with season tickets and more that just have to be at the home games.

Aw. Hoffman.

Thanks for the explanation. :snap:

But neither were they being asked to throw the kinds of pitches that are thrown today. Beating major league hitters requires a level of precission and control that does merit rigorous physical and mental preparation. They aren't just rearing back and throwing a ball hard and straight at a target. In 1926, movement on pitches was the exception, thrown every once in a while to fool the batter. Now, even your fastball better have movement on it, and that movement requires near mechanical perfection to avoid mistakes. Because, as evidenced yesterday, major league hitters will quickly make you pay for those mistakes.

I'd say it's a fair bet that even the best hitters of 1926 wouldn't stand a chance against today's pitchers, and vice versa.

Yup. Actually, had they brought him in after the first home run it would have been a save opportunity. But if he wasn't ready after the second home run, he definitely wouldn't have been ready after the first, and with a 4 run lead, no nead to panic after one run, so the theory went.

And here's how you react when your fans suck. (NSFW!)

Not counting the handful of grandfathered spitballers.

Ty Cobb and Rogers Hornsby worked fanatically on their hitting as did Ted Williams a generation later. Since hitting is not just about being yoked up a la Barry, (see Wade Boggs), I think they'd do fine, although there would be a period of adjustment.

With time and coaches, most likely. But left to their own devices, with no knowledge of the kinds of pitches thrown today, they'd have no clue what hit 'em.

What the hell was the point of all this again?

And conversely modern players would probably throw a fit about batting without batting gloves (and what would Barry do without being able to wear 4-inch-thick armor) and fielding with gloves barely larger than their hands and the mound five to eight inches taller.

But yeah, comparing players across eras is difficult. Better to compare win shares.

What a series. Friday and Sunday were great games (though I would have preferred a different outcome on Friday, of course.) Saturday wasn't exactly a "great" game, but the Padres kicked butt, so I'll take it. And holy crap what a game last night!!! I was watching it until about the eighth inning when the Padres were up 7-5. I turned it off and headed to the gym, figuring a) it would be on at the gym and b) two runs, Trevor would come in, Hells Bells, game over. It wasn't on at the gym. Grrr. I had no idea that the Pads had scored 2 more runs after I got to the gym or anything. Finally at about 10:50 one of the local news channels that was on ran the story about the 4 homers & mentioned that the game was tied. I think I lasted about 15 more seconds before I e-stopped the treadmill and went to my car to listen to the game.......Then, I arrived home right when Garciaparra was at bat & by the time I got inside and turned the TV on the Dodgers were celebrating at home plate.

What a freakin' roller coaster ride! I keep telling all my friends that this closeness & back & forth between the Dodgers & the Padres remindes me a lot of the end of the season in 1996, when I first became a Padres fan. It's just too bad that they aren't playing each other for the last series of the season like they did then....

All I can say is...thank the scheduling gods that the Dodgers aren't playing the Padres any more. I'll take the 9 game road trip to end the season over another series with them.

Okay, so let me get this, you are a Pads' fan? Do you ever come to home games? I remember you and CP had come down to SD one night, staying at/near Horton Plaza. But I can't remember why and I think the ballpark wasn't open yet?

Hey MickeyD!!!

I'm pretty sure that GD bleeds Dodger Blue, but I could be mistaken.

Yes, I'm a Dodgers fan. And I'm gald the Dodgers aren't playing the Padres any more because the Pads won 13 of 18 games against them this year. Take away the games against the Padres and the Dodgers have one of the top 5 win-loss records in baseball this season.

For some reason, every year, no matter how well the Dodgers are doing and no matter how poorly the Pads are doing, the Dodgers manage to find a way to lose to the punks.

And on the flip side, take away the games that the Padres have played against the Dodgers, I think they'd be under .500 right now. So um, yeah....if the Padres only played the Dodgers I'd be happy. ;)

Hi MouseWife!!!!!

*chuckle chuckle*

Oh, I see. :D Now I get why you don't want them to play the Pads....

Hi MickeyD!!

{oh, and on the news, a SD show, the anchorman said "The Padres may have lost but what an exciting game!"}