The World Series: Angels vs. Giants

Remark From The Fray (Game 7):

how is a 24yr old rookie who pitched in relief and on short rest consistently excellent or at least pretty good throughout the playoffs an "unlikely hero?" by now, one might well expect good things from him ... he basically took the old Ramiro Mendoza role and ran with it

"something less than extraordinary" is a bit petty way to describe a rookie who starting (again) on short rest pitched five innings of one run ball, and likely to have been able to pitch another inning

Peter Gammon gave Lackey, Donnelly, and Rodriguez their kudos ... Lindgren rather root for some pitch runner than offer a real compliment to someone who saved the Angels bacon in a game v the Yanks, matched zeroes with a Twin's ace for seven innings to pitch his team to a win, get a hit at his first at bat in his short MLB career, and win Game Seven ... the first rookie to do so since 1909.

he did more than "get the job done"

-- Joe

(To reply, click here.)


Remark From The Fray (Game 6):

"They play the same lineup as often as possible. They do not platoon,"

WRONG, now your information before you partake is sloppy Sports journalism.

The Angels platooned all year long Adam Kennedy and Benji Molina at 2nd base, Molina against left handed pitchers, Kennedy against right handed pitchers.

-- Scott

(To reply, click here.)


Remarks From The Fray (Game 5):

6 of the last 7 teams down 3-2 with the final 2 at their home park came back to win.

Of course, the last team to do it was the 2001 D-backs with Johnson and Schilling to pitch games 6 and 7. The team before that, the 1991 Twins, needed the big home field advantage of the packed & loud Metrodome and Jack Morris to pitch 10 innings for the Game 7 win over the Braves.

Anaheim does not have this sort of starting depth to compare (indeed, the point of the article). Still, they are full of guys who don't give up ABs. Should be an interesting weekend.

-- J Cormac

(To reply, click here.)


Has there been a decent throw to the plate by any outfielder yet? Neither team seems to have an outfielder who can get a ball home or close to it. Has anyone kept track of the number of runs scored as the result of these mediocre plays? Dusty's son is the smallest object to come close to home when scoring was on the line.

-- Michael Blackman

(To reply, click here.)


You emphasize the weaknesses of the Giants pitching line up in this year's World Series. While your criticism is justified to a degree, you focus on the Giants disaterous throws while Anaheim's have been much worse (proof is in the numbers in game 5). True, both teams are playing head to head with some second rate pitching.

But it's a low blow to harp on Schmit and Zerbe, who exploded with talent in game 5 when a win was critical for the World Series advantage. Why not point out what JT did in his last TV interview, that the Giants may have inconsistencies, but it IS interesting that its players share the limelight, each one coming through for the team at different moments and shining, in fact, under the most intense pressure. Doesn't that comraderie reflect true sportsmanship, as opposed to insulting some of the country's best athletes by comparing them to KMART polyester sheets piled high in the bargain bin?

After all, the Giants must have done *something* right if they've come this far and are leading the series 3-2.

-- SF Resident

(To reply, click here.)


Remarks From The Fray (Game 4):

Well, the Giants won and the series is now 2-2. No doubt we will now be treated to a host of stories about how the threat of Barry Bonds and his 3 intentional walks is why the Giants won the game. The other Giant hitters will be applauded for "taking advantage" of the opportunity presented by Bonds' presence in the lineup, and the improved Giant pitching -- the real reason why the Giants won game 4 and lost game 3 -- will be an afterthought.

I'm all in favor of recognizing Bonds' ability. He is the best player in the game today and, with three home runs in the World Series, has been the best player in the Series. But I am opposed to focusing solely on Bonds and pretending that he is the only thing, or even the most important thing, in the Series. When the Angels win, I think reporters should report that the Angels won and why they won. And if the Angels score 11 runs, it just might be possible that they won by hitting the ball, not by pitching around Barry Bonds. If the Giants win, report that. But if the Giants won because they pitched well and J.T. Snow and David Bell hit the ball, report that, not Bonds' intentional walks. But we'll see what comes up tomorrow.

-- Meph

(To reply, click here.)


Last night after game 4 I wrote [the above post—ed.]. As it turns out, what we got was:

I have to admit that Game 4 was almost heartbreaking. [Paragraph] Not because of who won or lost, but because of all those deadeningly anticlimactic intentional walks. Barry Bonds, the Babe Ruth of Our Time, came to the plate four times and got exactly one chance to swing the bat.

It turns out that I was overgenerous. I actually, if foolishly, thought that there would be some little bit in the article about the game that wasn't about Barry Bonds (or Bonds v. Rodriguez). I even thought that the other Giant hitters would get some small amount of credit and the Giant pitching would be an "afterthought." Turns out the other Giant hitters and the pitchers weren't even worth an afterthought.

-- Meph

(To reply, click here.)


Bonds reaches the plate, one out, with men on second and third in a three run game. The decision to walk him is easy as pie, right? You have to hit that darn strike zone three times and he just too likely to take anything in the zone out of the park. So the catcher stands up and the formality of the intentional walk begins.
But the Giants could choose to change the equation. Let's say Barry takes a perfunctory swing at pitch-out the first. Now the count is 0-1 and the math changes. Only 2 strikes.... hmm.... maybe we should pitch to the guy. Still pitching out, swing again. Now at 0-2 is the decision to pitch-out easy. This is now beyond my limited ability to guess but it's interesting.
I can easily be persuaded that this is dumb if both managers agree that the advantage goes over to the pitcher on 0-1 then shouldering the bat and walking to first is automatic. If they both agree that 0-2 is the turning point then shouldn't Barry swing once just to give the pitcher that one extra opportunity to muff the throw (and maybe get inside their head a little). The big payoff for fans would be if the managers disagreed on where the break even point was. I can easily imagine Dusty Baker opting to let Bonds have a go at 0-2 (less now than after the 3rd inning last night). And in that case would you intentionally walk Barry, 0-2 ? Maybe, but it would be more interesting....

-- Colin

(To reply, click here.)


Yes, the column read as a slam on Barry's selfish seeming demeanor. But the line about a sense of self-preservation being the reason why Bonds is better at 38 than he was at 28 is the kind of press Bonds (or his agent) would probably be willing to pay for if Hugo wasn't doling it out for free. Why? Because what's really dogging Bonds is not bloop singles or intentional walks, but (generally unspoken) steroid allegations. For just below the surface, to varying degrees, most baseball fans are at least wondering whether Bonds' Golden Years jump in OPS is somehow chemically aided.

By the way, didn't Bonds win an MVP or two back in the early '90s? He must have been a pretty good player then -- just of a different type (i.e., hitting singles and playing the outfield).

-- Fletcher

(To reply, click here.)

Remark From The Fray (Game 3):

So the Angels take a 2-1 lead in the Series, explode for 10 runs on 16 hits (or so), hit around in two consecutive innings, and Slate readers are treated to -- yet another article on Barry Bonds.

Alright, I get it now. Bonds is a great player. Bonds hits the ball a ton. Bonds is selfish. Bonds is -- oh, who cares anymore?

With an offensive explosion like last night, one might think that the Angels' hitting would be the lead. But it isn't. The fact that the Angels batted at all in last night's game is an afterthought to Mr. Lindgren. Lindgren apparently sees the purpose of an Angel at-bat as to make Bonds field the ball (first mention: paragraph six), not to score a mess of runs (first mention: paragraph thirteen). But then, he's just following the script.

The script the media has decided on for this World Series is as follows: Barry Bonds, great player and rotten human being, has finally reached the World Series. Will he choke? Will he succeed? Will he show off his terrible personality? That is what's important, not anything else. So far as I know Bonds has never corked a bat, chased trick-or-treaters in his car, been caught with drugs or prostitutes, and he's never killed anyone. That puts him ahead of plenty of other athletes, but Bonds, (according to Lindgren), is (gasp) selfish. So was Michael Jordan, of course. And almost every other sports star in history. Bonds' problem is that he's a star of baseball when baseball is ruled by Bud Selig, who likes nothing more than to make fans think that baseball isn't worth watching anymore.

My point is not so much that Bonds is being treated unfairly (maybe he is a creep), but that the media has committed to reporting on him, rather than the series, as if Bonds is the only baseball story today. It's just too bad that there was a game last night to get in the way.

-- Meph

(To reply, click here.)

(10/28)

• Telnaes: McCain's Foray Into Pandora's Box
• Gerson: How He Was Ambushed by History
• Parker: Palin Can Save the Mainstream Media
• Topic A: A Game-Changing Debate?