Friday, October 3, 2014

That Was Fun



15 comments:

Zo said...

How about those Cardinals? What a marvelous evening!

M.C. O'Connor said...

Yes, always happy when the Dodgers lose. BUT--

tell us the story! How the hell did you get to DC? What was it like at the game?

M.C. O'Connor said...

Peavy's best ever post season start.

Next time he'll finish six and push seven.

M.C. O'Connor said...

I'm still stoked about Ishikawa.

And Blanco on base twice with a walk and a bunt. Let's see more bunts from him.

ogc obsessivegiantscompulsive said...

Wow, did not realize how bad Peavy was in his career. I knew the bad ERA, but yeah, this was his best!

Yeah, Ishikawa has been a good find, when we got him, I thought when the heck will he ever make the 25 man roster? Now he is our starting LF. And he is fine batting 8th, he is better than most 8th place hitters. And he has been a fine base runner before, so it makes sense that he has some range in LF.

And that was what I was envisioning for us back in 2011, before Belt made the team, that Travis would platoon at first with Posey, plus start playing in LF to provide some flexibility to justify him on the bench. That could work next season if we move Belt to LF.

Brother Bob said...

Strickland is special. If he can master a secondary pitch (or two) he could be a monster.

Zo said...

I got here via airplane. The opportunity came at short notice, I had no idea when I was in Yreka. Very few Giants fans in attendance, I guess no more than 200. Giants took what Strasburg gave them, he threw fastballs, they went up the middle. Strickland threw mostly fastballs, Harper had a chance to time them. Folks said it was the longest they'd seen.

JC Parsons said...

Finally, the Mystic One throws us a bone. What a lucky guy. I watched most of it in my class room. I realized that I've seen a few post season games like that. Heehee, I said a few....
I'm so happy for the Nat fans about their memorable but meaningless home run. My personal favorite is JT Snows way back when.
Getting very psyched for today. This one looks real bad on paper. What unexpected hero or event will happen? I can't wait.
About Kershaw. Amazing and gloriously disastrous of the scum. His post season situation points out a HUGE problem I have with all the modern stats. My mind and all the numbers argue against "choking" and other character flaw performance failures. But my heart what's to BELIEVE that Kershaw is a big time choker! His last two are his worst games ever basically in an amazing career. Of course, sample size and truth tell me it is probably nothing so terrific. So I say, screw logic for a while, and let's wonder at how such a talented athlete can lose his composure and focus in the only big games of his career. Will he choke again? Personally I hope we don't even get a chance to find out this year!!!

JC Parsons said...

BTW is Zo still there? Going to today's game? I don't think I saw a ticket for Sat

JC Parsons said...

I went back and looked. One ticket for all three games!!!?? Excellent! If , Willie forbid, if don't win today, are you staying there? I imagine it would be a cool place to hang out for a few days. Do tell....

ogc obsessivegiantscompulsive said...

This is the best article I've ever read on choking. Gets into how the mind works, really jibes with my reality (I'm a choker...).

I think all the sabers got the choking analysis wrong. It is not necessarily hitting better than when no pressure, it is being able to hit like you always can do when there is no pressure as well, there is a benefit to that as well.

I'm glad Kershaw kept this face plant for the post-season.

M.C. O'Connor said...

Performance failures, i.e., "choking" are certainly real. Just like "clutch hitting." The problem is identifying the WHY. We've been told by sports-writers our whole lives that it is due to a character flaw (or, on the flip side, some virtue). If you fail in a big game it must be because you are, deep down, weak, not manly enough, etc. While if you get the winning hit or whatnot you are cooler, tougher, etc. That may indeed be true. But it also may be a crock of shit. The problem with the stats--new or traditional--is that they cannot account for the WHY. Nor can they offer predictive value (the ultimate goal of sabermetrics). I don't like when outside, disconnected observers claim they "know" the truth about a person's character. Seems presumptuous to me.

Am I happy the Cards trashed Kershaw? Absolutely. Am I willing to bet he won't pitch well in some other post-season game(s)? Absolutely not.

And no one I have ever read has ever explained why a guy can be a "choke" in one post-season and a "stud" in another. Mike Schmidt 1980 WS MVP, 1-for-20 in 1983 v. Orioles. Stud? Choker? Which one? Like Walt Whitman said about "containing multitudes" I believe that all athletes have both extremes of performance within them. Otherwise they'd never have made it to the big stage.

Perhaps "choking" and "clutch" will never be adequately explained. And while there are obviously differences amongst athletes in how they handle pressure situations, the outcomes are not necessarily the total picture of their skill sets. It's a team game. (Mattingly should have yanked Kershaw--he was tired and not getting his breaking ball to work.)

I like to see athletes as variables, not fixed entities. They learn, they grow, they evolve and adapt. Or they don't. But what a guy did once does not have to tell what he'll do next. I mean think about your favorite player--Tim Lincecum. Is he a "clutch stud?" Still? Would you automatically assume because of his past success that he'll kick ass in the post-season again? If so, he should be starting today, don't you think? He just might be "that guy" again, but he might also implode. After all he did lose his job to a journeyman. Does that make him a "choke" now?

I prefer to think of him as Tim Lincecum, full of variability and complexity just like everyone else. That's why the consistent players are so impressive--they shrink that variability into smaller stretches. And if people knew HOW they did that they'd bottle that and sell it and it wouldn't be a mystery any more.

GO GIANTS!

Brother Bob said...

All we have is probabilities. But there's a reason they have to actually play the game, as we all know. Surprises are fun.
I'm going to be a wet rag today. I have an over/under of my own creation for how long Hudson will last today and it's 2.2 innings, and I'm inclined to take the under.
That doesn't necessarily mean I think we'll lose.
But probably.

Brother Bob said...

So now it's the top of the 17th. I'm so sick of this game.
I'm glad I was wrong about Hudson. He was great.
The Walgreens deserve to lose, but at this point I don't much care.

JC Parsons said...

Haha! What a great last comment! Time to switch to next post.....
(Spoiler) it got better.