Diamondbacks 3, Giants 2: Tim Tamed, Lincecum Loses
Record: 76-76. Pace: 81-81. Change on last season: -9
Elimination number: 7. Playoff odds: not good
Brandon Webb's Cy Young chances were given a leg-up by his team-mates, who pinned an L on Tim Lincecum's forehead for only the fourth time this season, thanks to a two-out RBI single by Adam Dunn in the eighth inning. That scored Conor Jackson from second - he'd just stolen a base to get there - and made a somewhat fortunate winner of Juan Cruz, who gave up the tying run, a solo homer to Molina, in the top-half of the inning.
Poor Randy Johnson: that's now four quality starts in five outings, and not a single win to show for it, despite an ERA of 3.23 over that time. Tonight, he went toe-to-toe with Lincecum, who was aged four when Randy Johnson made his major-league debut in 1988. The Giants struck first, loading the bases in the first before Johnson retired a batter. However, all they managed was a sacrifice fly - not just in that inning, but for the next six beyond that. San Francisco only had one at-bat with a man in scoring position against Johnson after that: the nearest they came to scoring was when Aurilia was thrown out trying to go first to third, which ended the third.
Meanwhile, Lincecum was proving as good as advertised, even though his change-up didn't seem as crisp as on his previous outings against us. We did manage to get runners on base, and even as far as third-base [Eckstein in the third], but it was until the sixth inning that we broke through, with the score at that point still 1-0 to the Giants. Drew doubled to lead things off, and was [sigh] bunted to third by Ojeda. Jackson took a nasty blow off the hand from Lincecum to put men on the corners with one out, but Dunn went down swinging, unable to deal with a steady diet of off-speed pitches from the San Francisco ace. By throwing 118 pitches, Lincecum became the first pitcher to throw that many in three consecutive outings, since Jason Schmidt in June 2004.
That left driving the runners home up to Upton, and it looked like he had flown out harmlessly to left field, with a defensive swing on another change-up that was barely inches off the ground. However, Velez - not a natural outfielder - either misjudged the ball very badly, or it suddenly turned on its afterburners, because it jetted right over his his despairing grab to go all the way to the wall. Both base-runners scored on what was ruled a triple for Upton, and Arizona found themselves with an unexpected lead. Johnson and Lincecum traded zeroes in the seventh, before the Big Unit was pulled for a pinch-hitter, having thrown 92 pitches. He allowed one run on eight hits and walk over the seven innings, striking out four.
Lincecum was rewarded for his outing - and for staying in the game after being hit on his non-pitching hand when trying to bunt in the fifth - by being taken off the hook in the top of the eighth, thanks to Molina's homer. But he was put right back on it in the bottom half, with all the action coming after two men were out. Jackson singled - his second hit of the night, raising his average to .353 during his ten-game hitting streak - and promptly swiped his ninth base of the year. Dunn, who'd failed to get the man home from third with one out in the sixth, achieved some redemption by driving in a run from second, his 94th RBI of the year. David Eckstein also enjoyed a two-hit night, though for the third time in this four-game set, the Diamondbacks didn't get a single walk.
Chad Qualls then closed things out with a 1-2-3 ninth, though was made to work pretty hard for the outs, not least by Ishikawa, who fouled off a number of tough pitches before finally looking at a full-count strike. The victory pushes Arizona back to the .500 mark - ah, I remember the heady days when that was good enough for first place in the NL West, most recently on July 25. Of course, we've gone 3-7 against the Dodgers since then, which certainly hasn't helped things in the standings. As noted, they squeaked past the Pirates in 12 innings - a loss might have started to make things somewhat interesting, but their lead instead stays at 3.5 games.

[Click to enlarge, in new window]
Master of his domain: Randy Johnson. +30.9%
Highly honorable mention: Upton, +27.3%. Honorable mention: Qualls, +16.8%
God-emperor of suck: Juan Cruz, -13.1%
Dishonorable mention: Augie Ojeda, -12.1%
The narwhals continue to work their horny magic, as it were, and Arizona has a four-game winning streak for the first time since August 1. A wide and varied - that's a polite way of saying bordering on the criminally off-topic - Gameday Thread, though it seems that every time I announced my departure, the Giants scored. It was therefore deemed wise to keep quiet my ninth-inning haircut. Present were Azreous, snakecharmer, DbacksSkins, emilylovesthedbacks, soco, Gravity, nargel, mrssoco, kishi, foulpole, unnamedDBacksfan, TwinnerA, AZWILDCATS, hotclaws, Diamondhacks, 4 Corners Fan, damdrs1717, Zephon and singaporedbacksfan. I trust we all learned a little bit about what counts as acceptable language, too. :-)
And the team heads off to their final road-trip, visiting Colorado and St. Louis before coming back to Arizona for the last three games of the season. This is the final stretch: never say give up, not while there is lolnarwhal mojo to be invoked.
0 recs |
48 comments
|
Comments
"...before finally looking at a full-count strike. "
???
Oh , that’s right.
He swung his bat in frustration at looking at the third strike , lol.
F@*king Velez. But hey , the ball was smoked. You beat our best.
From the “What the hell?” dept. :
Vic Jr.and I (Sec.118 , row 26) could swear that shortly after the visual commands to “Make some noise!” etc that canned crowd noise emanates from somewhere above the pressboxes. Sounds like when the surf rushes up the sand…then the ACTUAL crowd noise blends with it.
Must have been that pepper laden Chicago nightmare hot dog I disappeared , huh? Sure.
"Ain't got a hope in Hell - that's my belief." - Bon Scott
by victor frankenstein on Sep 19, 2008 3:38 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
From the "What the hell?" dept. :
Vic Jr.and I (Sec.118 , row 26) could swear that shortly after the visual commands to "Make some noise!" etc that canned crowd noise emanates from somewhere above the pressboxes. Sounds like when the surf rushes up the sand…then the ACTUAL crowd noise blends with it.
God, and all the angels in heaven, cheering for their favorite team. (Wow…. suddenly, I hate myself for sounding like a Cowboys fan)
Glad you got to see TIMMAY. Must have been kind of a memorable game seeing both RJ AND Lincecum. Any drunken Dbacks fans impolite again? Send Vic Jr. the Snakepit’s regards.
Josh Byrnes: PLEEEEEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE RE-SIGN ADAM DUNN!!
by DbacksSkins on Sep 19, 2008 4:15 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Isn't it ironic
Juan Cruz gets the win, RJ gets robbed, and yet somehow Lincecum’s CY Young case is hurt by getting tagged with a loss in a game he pitched brilliantly.
by shoewizard on Sep 19, 2008 11:05 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Not so sure it hurt his CYY case as some might see it as a hard-luck loss and nothing more. On the flip side, Webb won his start and I haven’t read anything saying the win bolstered his case.
Also, SF will run Lincecum out there Tues. instead of Wed. and then Sun. to close the season in order to get him 2 more starts. While they said (before last night’s game) that it wasn’t because of the CY or to get him 20 wins, what else could it be? Hopefully Web wins his next 2 starts and lower his ERA somewhat to bolster his case regardless of what Lincecum does.
by TwinnerA on Sep 19, 2008 11:26 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
A win always helps your case
And Webb lowered his ERA a bit, which never hurts.
I don’t know that Lincecum is as much of a hard-luck case as everyone tries to push that he is- if you look at run support, Webb and Lincecum are pretty close- 5.04 and 4.97, respectively. That’s also the best number for any of the Giants starters- Barry Zito is at 4.00 and Matt Cain is at a truly depressing 3.30.
At this point, I sort of feel like Lincecum’s going to win, no matter what, so that they can point at it and say, “Look, look, we’re basing votes off more than just wins this year!” But, come on, people- either wins are the most important stat, in which case Webb should win, or wins aren’t the most important stat, in which case Randy Johnson would like his 2004 Cy Young Award. Preferably ripped from the hands of a weeping Roger Clemens.
"Besides, you two shouldn't fight! You're best friends, I would imagine. You can't let a bunch of talking dogs in space helmets ruin that."
by kishi on Sep 19, 2008 12:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
RJ was robbed in 2004
No doubt about it.
by shoewizard on Sep 19, 2008 12:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just for fun
let me ask you this hypothetical.
Let’s assume Randy didnt pitch in 2004, but all the other CY contenders did. Who should’ve won the award then, in your opinion? If I understand your approach correctly, the best remaining pitcher, by a large margin actually, was neither Clemens or Oswalt, but Ben Sheets…who ws 12-14.
Would you award him the Cy, after the Astros clawed their way to the Wild Card? Just curious.
Personally, I’d have a hard time supporting that, even though deep down we agree Sheets was the most dominating pitcher on an inning by inning basis. Maybe it’s unfair, but I always go back to Carlton’s ’72 and other less startling examples of starters winning for losing clubs.
Awarding the Cy to any pitcher who wins half his games just seems to divorce the award from the primary objective of the game as played, which with all due respect to Bill James (and Randy of course), is not scoring and preventing runs, but winning. Otherwise, we might as well just make the CYA a neutralized statistical award and not even have people vote. In fact, we might as well not even capture pitcher Wins as a stat.
by Diamondhacks on Sep 19, 2008 6:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would actually enjoy having this debate
This would be an excellent debate to have, and it could be edifying for both of us, as well as anyone who reads it.
However, if I am to enter into debate with you, I have terms:
1.) Not even a hint of Ad Hom attacks or character assessment by either of us. Our ideas must stand on their own.
2.) Each response is limited to 100 words or less. We both tend to get too verbose, long winded, etc, and this will help us remain more focused and conduct an actual point/counter point debate. I think that would be more productive than trying to overwhelm the other with volume, and forcing/enabling ? the other to cherry pick which part of a long rambling post to respond too, ultimately resulting in talking past each other.
Agreed ?
by shoewizard on Sep 20, 2008 11:09 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He...he...
maybe 100 words too few.
make it 200….LOL
by shoewizard on Sep 20, 2008 1:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Please understand
I’ve never written 200 consecutive words absent “Mussolini” or “knucklehead”, but there’s always a first time and your ground rules intrigue me.
So, I’m in.
I’m fine with two or three responses each, or seeing where it takes us, and with you having the last word. I think you’ll find I’m not terribly entrenched on the issue and am less concerned with “winning” a debate than in discussing the relative value of Wins, hence the Sheets hypothetical.
( Paid subscribers should also come to terms with the fact that shoe’s ground rules virtually crush my ability to entertain)
Your turn.
by Diamondhacks on Sep 20, 2008 9:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Let me start with a question:
Who contributed more to the win on Thursday, Johnson or Cruz ? Likewise, who contributed more to the win tonight, Davis or Pena ?
If you feel that Cruz and Pena deserved the “win”, please explain why .
by shoewizard on Sep 21, 2008 1:29 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
There's no question
both starters pitched more effectively in those particular cases. To the extent one is comfortable assigning partial credit towards whole numerical accomplishments ( externally dependent accomplishments at that ), I’d agree they “contributed more” to the respective wins.
The more subjective question of “Most Deserving” is further complicated by competing interests for that title. To use your examples (and stretch them a little for the sake of the argument), one might assert Lincecum was as “deserving” as Randy or that Cook was more “deserving” than DD today.
The assignment of individual wins and losses is a useful but imperfect tool by which to clarify a pitcher’s effectiveness on a given day. Or over a season or career for that matter. Just like any other stat.
by Diamondhacks on Sep 21, 2008 3:50 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Useful yes, but preferable?
There can be no doubt that over the long haul of a season or a career, a pitcher that has accumulated a lot of wins has pitched effectively. However it is my opinion that the primary way for a pitcher to contribute to those wins is by preventing runs. (Pitcher hitting and defense aside). With so many variables that are out of the pitchers control affecting W-L, and the archaic and quirky manner in which wins are apportioned, W-L record is of only minor utility for determining which pitcher actually contributed the most value within a given season, OR for determining future performance.
This shift in emphasis from W-L record to run prevention is further supported by the changes in the game. In the 1960-70’s the average starting pitcher went nearly 6 2/3 per start, and the CY Winner typically went 7 2/3 or 8 IP per start. In 2008, the average starter goes just over 5 2/3 IP, and the recent CY winners, and current contenders go about 6 2/3.
IOW, the avg starter used to get at least 20 of the outs required compared to about 17 today. Leaving 15% more outs on the table for the bullpen to pick up leaves the starter much more at the mercy of his bullpen to pick up wins, as we D Backs fans are painfully aware.
by shoewizard on Sep 21, 2008 11:27 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Won/Loss
isnt preferable to run prevention in determining a CYA winner. To ignore either robs an analysis of perspective.
it is my opinion that the primary way for a pitcher to contribute to those wins is by preventing runs
Agreed, but let’s focus on “those” in a seasonal sense. I think we agree Sheets and Johnson “contributed” more to their respective 2004 wins than did the Astro pitchers. But as marvelous as they were at preventing runs, Randy and Ben only contributed to 16 team victories each. Oswalt & Clemens didnt prevent as many total runs, but they prevented runs sufficiently to contribute to (not be completely responsible for) 22 and 23 team wins, respectively. However high we factor Ben and Randy’s per Win contributions, their multipliers remain 16 – unless one adds credit for contributing to team losses, and a CYA system that awards equivalent credit for run prevention in wins and in well pitched losses is missing something.
In today’s environment of 5 and 6 inning starters, horses who go seven or eight are not only more valuable, but their marginal value is usually reflected in increased decisions (wins and losses), often at the expense of run prevention measures.
by Diamondhacks on Sep 21, 2008 3:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think we are moving closer together
Won/Loss isnt preferable to run prevention in determining a CYA winner. To ignore either robs an analysis of perspective.
Agreed. I am fine with using W-L * as a tie breaker in the event run prevention is fairly close. In the case of Lincecum vs. Webb, it isn’t. There is a whopping ERA gap , 0.82 to be exact. I mean, we are getting close to a full run here, and when we include unearned runs, the gap only grows larger.
- Note, when I say W-L, I am thinking of simply the team W-L in the pitchers starts, not the archaic and arbitrary W-L stat as it’s currently set up. Joe Posnanski has a great article that discusses this, and articulates the concept far better than I can
http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2008/03/09/statheads-and-true-wins/
But even that is still subject to the quality of the overall team. It’s better….but still not good enough.
Ben Sheets 04 has been brought up a couple times now. Take a closer look at his splits, and his performance in his No Decisions and his losses. Look at the game logs. The Brewers scored 19 runs in his 14 losses, were shut out 4 times, and only scored more than 3 runs one time. You are helping make my case for me. ;)
http://www.baseball-reference.com/pi/psplit.cgi?n1=sheetbe01&year=2004
http://www.baseball-reference.com/pi/gl.cgi?n1=sheetbe01&year=2004&t=p
by shoewizard on Sep 22, 2008 11:20 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry, but I have to go well over 200 here,
to adequately advance the discussion.
I favor Posnanski’s True Wins (ie team wins) over a starter’s W/L, but his assertion that there’s only a “passing relationship” between the two smacks of anecdotal politicking. There’s a clearly imperfect, but unmistakable seasonal correlation, and those who fail to acknowledge that are either forwarding an agenda or dont know what a correlation is. (We can talk about this.)
I’ve mentioned Sheets “a couple times now” because, imo, the 04 scenarios provide a crisper case study for this discussion (compared to Lincecum/Webb). If you feel Sheets helps make your case than we’re not as close as we’d both hope. Sheets and Johnson were far and away the best run preventers. There’s no argument there. I dont need to look at the gamelogs :- )
Our chat started with a question: Who deserved the 2004 NL CYA? You feel Randy was “robbed” and I gather you’d tab Sheets most deserving in Randy’s absence, because, if you’ll permit me, you equate the best run preventers w/ the most deserving of the Cy. Your use for Wins as little more than a “tiebreaker” suggests you feel seasonal Wins are either arbitrary and/or barely more than incidental – at least when comparing high quality pitchers.
I feel seasonal Wins have both an arbitrary (external, contextual) component and a component highly correlative with excellence. The arbitrary component doesnt prevent me from recognizing that Wins have Value, both apart from and tied to that excellence.
You look for the “best pitcher”, given his myriad circumstances (support, park etc). I look for the pitcher most responsible for his team’s success, aka the most successful pitcher, with a keen eye towards those circumstances (ie park, support,etc).
Preventing runs is closely related to success, and is terribly important, but it is not success. Success is when your team wins, and while statistics are very useful in qualifying that, there’s no statistical substitute for success itself. Most of the time, the Cy Young Award does, and should, reflect that.
by Diamondhacks on Sep 22, 2008 2:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And herein lies the disconnect
You are attributing success to a pitcher for things he has very minimal control over, such as run support , bullpen support & defense. These variables aren’t going away, and will always be the achilles heal of the argument. The variables contained therein are huge. By handing the award to the guy with the most wins, you are simply giving a guy credit for being on a more successful team, and having better players for teammates, not for being the best pitcher.
In 2004, Clemens received 4.81 R per 27 outs, Sheets 3.54
It wasn’t a level playing field. By measuring their performance in terms of wins, or team W-L in their starts, you are giving Sheets a handicap and telling him he has to win the same amount of games with far fewer runs to work with. This just isn’t a logical way to measure a pitchers success to me.
Finally, back to Lincecum and Webb, which is what this is REALLY about:
22-10, vs. 21-11. There is a 1 game difference here, and that does not outweigh nearly a full run difference in run prevention in MY evaluation calculations. But……if we simply want to go by best record in a pitchers starts and call it a day, I guess that will simplify things and end debate anyway. ;)
by shoewizard on Sep 22, 2008 4:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
By handing the award to the guy with the most wins…
Does anyone else here think that’s what I’m doing?
You are attributing success to a pitcher for things he has very minimal control over…
Not directly, like you’re implying. I’m defining success differently than you are, as Team Wins (or Team W/L, if you like), then trying to attribute partial and reasonable credit to the starter, based on your favored measures. Your baseline appears to be the measures themselves, then you tiebreak and tweak with the Wins. I think, and I say this respectfully, you have it backwards.
Randy’s mates won 23 games in 1999, just 16 in 2004. He’s the same pitcher, essentially, both years. Best in the league. I cheerfully recognize that. But that steady greatness, through little or no fault of his own, resulted in wildy disparate results. Results that he is partially responsible for and partially (a large part, I agree) not responsible for. But the key thing, shoe, is they are real results regardless – not contrived, neutralized results extrapolated from a spreadsheet for use in next year’s contract discussions, but real results that are not only synonymous with success and from which shares of success (not shares of "performance") can be attributed, they are success itself.
Let me ask you this? How valuable a pitcher was Randy in those 19 starts the Dbacks lost in 2004? Not how good was he? How valuable? This, as I’m sure you recognize, is roughly analogous to the old MVP arguments – should it be the best player or the most valuable, in terms of marginal wins, playoff boost,etc. One reason I gravitate towards a more valuable approach re CYAs is because, with due respect to unlevel playing fields, starters tend to influence their team’s individual game outcomes more than any position player.
you are giving Sheets a handicap and telling him he has to win the same amount of games with far fewer runs to work with.
To win the Cy Young Award? Sure. And I’m not giving him the handicap. Baseball is giving him the handicap. The game. This isnt Little League, where everyone, incl the kid with the club foot, gets to play. Major league baseball is full of inequality, and while I respect (and share) a healthy effort to account for that, “healthy” ends for me sometime before we decide that a wonderful pitcher whose team lost 54% of his starts is “robbed” when he’s denied the CYA.
Finally, back to Lincecum and Webb, which is what this is REALLY about:
Not really. This is a debate about weighing two priciples that we agree have some value, to come up with a Cy Young winner. Wins and run prevention, essentially. It’s no more about Tim Lincecum than it’s about Ben Sheets, Pete Vukovich or Lamarr Hoyt. It’s about ideas, and the reason I’m avoiding Lincecum/Webb now (compared to two weeks ago) isnt because I disagree with your current analysis – it’s because (as you say) Tim’s ERA+ gap clearly trumps Brandon’s True Wins gap. I agree with you – Lincecum’s now the frontrunner- but that’s easy, and doesnt frame the true philosophical divide like Randy & Sheets do, imo.
In 2004, you’ve got two monster run preventers vs two lesser run preventers who enjoy monster True Win gaps of six and seven over Ben and Randy. Which means more? In terms of assessing how responsible each pitcher was for his team’s “success”. I’d argue Oswalt and Clemens were both responsible for considerably more “success”, in no small part because they enjoyed more favorable environments. It’s not fair, but games never are – not the ones played on grass.
Hey, thanks for offering up the ground rules. While I found it harder to fully acknowledge some of your points and convey nuance under the limits, it also helped to focus the discussion and limit some of the snark. Which is a step forward.
Cheers
by Diamondhacks on Sep 22, 2008 7:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
One final point
I have to be honest, I don’t know why I expend so much energy on Cy Young, MVP debates, etc. In truth, they are not that important. Quite interesting for sure, but ultimately the thing that matters most in my mind is evaluating future performance. Of course I don’t have any input or say into player personnel movement, nor do any of us here. So that is an equally futile mental exercise on my part.. BUT……….if we were evaluating a pitcher, any pitcher, as a potential trade target or free agent signing, and were trying to project the next couple of years, I feel pretty confident you would agree with me that using W-L records would be of minimal utility as a projection tool. In fact, I’m sure of it.
So I will concede that my predilection to look at things in a neutral context, and discount (but not totally disregard) something that is so heavily influenced by things outside the pitchers control is born out of this focus on the future.
IOW, while I realize assigning value to current performance and projecting future performance are two completely different discussions, I sometimes get the two mixed up. ;)
by shoewizard on Sep 23, 2008 11:20 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It made it easy last year
when Peavy had the edge in wins, strikeouts and ERA. Should Lincecum fail to win any more games and be stuck at 17 and Webb go on to win 23, I would think it would be hard to discount the 6-win edge by Webb. Also, that would mean 5 more wins this season for Webb than last year and on a worse team.
by TwinnerA on Sep 19, 2008 12:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If the Rancid Rocket had his Cy Youngs stripped from him
from the time he’s been exposed for doing steroids, that’d mean two extras for the Unit — the 2004 NL, and IIRC, the 1998 AL.
Josh Byrnes: PLEEEEEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE RE-SIGN ADAM DUNN!!
by DbacksSkins on Sep 19, 2008 6:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wow
Didn’t he also have a 135+ pitch outing (in the hopes of getting a complete game) recently? It’s great that the Giants are rooting for their guy to get the Cy Young, but it’s gonna be great for the rest of the NL west when his arm falls off from overuse.
"We...probed them all the way through. They're completely meat." — Terry Bisson
by Scrbl on Sep 19, 2008 12:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed.
I’d sacrifice the Cy Young to Lincecum this year to allow Webb to win the next 5 Cy Youngs. (Not gonna happen, but still. Never know.)
Josh Byrnes: PLEEEEEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE RE-SIGN ADAM DUNN!!
by DbacksSkins on Sep 19, 2008 6:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
W-L record matters to CY voters
Just ask Randy Johnson if he remembers 2004. Ergo, the loss will have hurt Lincecum’s case.
Now, you can certainly argue it should not matter, but that’s a separate argument.
by Jim McLennan on Sep 19, 2008 12:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
On the other hand
Lincecum’s wins aren’t pitifully low, and the gap between him and Webb isn’t too much. I’m still thinking Lincecum pulls this out unless Webb has some lights out games to end the season.
We are gonna get drunk with Adam Dunn and we're gonna head-butt some damn kangaroos.
by soco on Sep 19, 2008 1:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It was less the wins
That hurt Randy in 2004 – he only had two less than Clemens. It was the losses, where Johnson had 14 and Clemens only four. We know why – Arizona scored more than three runs in only two of those fourteen losses, and one or zero runs in eight of them – but that’s why a 33% increase in Lincecum’s loss column last night was significant.
That loss and Webb’s win certainly helped, but I do agree that Lincecum is likely the favorite at the moment. Webb needs to hope he can stretch his lead in wins over the last couple of starts, to have any real shot.
by Jim McLennan on Sep 19, 2008 3:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Webb
probably also needs to hope that Timcecum doesn’t win another game, probably picks up another couple losses, and that his upper right arm has to be amputated due to infectious gangrene caused by throwing so many pitches.
Josh Byrnes: PLEEEEEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE RE-SIGN ADAM DUNN!!
by DbacksSkins on Sep 19, 2008 3:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
34323
paid attendance? Boy, I dont know. The bleachers sure looked deserted on TV, even for a Dbacks game. Was anyone here at the game? Maybe they had some big group sales in the upper deck that I couldnt see, but I can usually eyeball it pretty close at home, and was guessing they had more like 25-27.
by Diamondhacks on Sep 19, 2008 11:44 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
You said it yourself
“paid”
A lot of people didn’t show. But the tickets were sold.
by shoewizard on Sep 19, 2008 11:52 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Here's the reported gate for the series,
starting with Monday:
26K
33K
23K
34K
These figures suggest that paid gates on consecutive schoolnights are varying wildly – up to 50%. There were no promotional giveaways this week. How did 11K more seats get sold on one schoolnight vs the next? To the extent Lincecum and RJ drove some walkup, I’d suspect that ‘d be reflected by fannies in the bleachers – and that clearly wasnt the case. So, it’s gotta be a huge disparity in advance sales – and I dont recall Daron mentioning anything about a huge group up there. ( Maybe I just missed it.)
It just puzzles me how the day that appeared to have the emptiest bleachers (Thursday) also happened to have the most advance sales – by such a whopping margin.
by Diamondhacks on Sep 19, 2008 6:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I believe
Thursday was the last game for workers in the AZ healthcare industry to get discounted tickets, so that could have something to do with it.
Josh Byrnes: PLEEEEEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE RE-SIGN ADAM DUNN!!
by DbacksSkins on Sep 19, 2008 6:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sounds like
a dying cottage industry, to me.
(j/k…thanks)
by Diamondhacks on Sep 19, 2008 7:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Happy Talk Like a Pirate Day
"Besides, you two shouldn't fight! You're best friends, I would imagine. You can't let a bunch of talking dogs in space helmets ruin that."
by kishi on Sep 19, 2008 1:31 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Ahahahahaha
My friend is a Pirate’s fan and that is brilliant!
What a crazy random happenstance!
by mrssoco on Sep 19, 2008 1:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And what's Talk Like a Pirate Day...
Without singing like a pirate too?
by Azreous on Sep 19, 2008 2:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
In other news...
Adam Kennedy just hit a grand slam to put the Cubs behind huge early.
He of the one home run this year, and eight in the past three years combined.
by Azreous on Sep 19, 2008 2:42 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
We should sign THAT guy
and make him our cleanup hitter.
Josh Byrnes: PLEEEEEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE RE-SIGN ADAM DUNN!!
by DbacksSkins on Sep 19, 2008 3:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Absolutely.
He wouldn’t clog up the basepaths like some other cleanup hitter we have.
by Azreous on Sep 19, 2008 3:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well,
it certainly seems that the Giants are trying REEEALLY hard to get the Cy Young for Timcecum. Not so sure how I feel about that. They let him pitch his second straight complete game last night.
Josh Byrnes: PLEEEEEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE RE-SIGN ADAM DUNN!!
by DbacksSkins on Sep 19, 2008 3:17 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Hey I have a question for you...
when you have a second…
by snakecharmer on Sep 19, 2008 3:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
On GChat?
Or AIM?
Josh Byrnes: PLEEEEEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE RE-SIGN ADAM DUNN!!
by DbacksSkins on Sep 19, 2008 6:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Seems that way.
In related news, whatever miniscule (if any) chance Zambrano had at the CY is gone after he got torpedoed against St. Louis today.
by Azreous on Sep 19, 2008 6:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
His ERA
skyrocketed from 3.41 to 3.77 after 1.2 innings pitched today. Yikes!
by TwinnerA on Sep 19, 2008 6:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That’s a pretty impressive jump this late in the season.
"Besides, you two shouldn't fight! You're best friends, I would imagine. You can't let a bunch of talking dogs in space helmets ruin that."
by kishi on Sep 19, 2008 8:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's okay.
It won’t faze him. He’ll still declare next year in spring training that THIS is going to be the year he wins the Cy Young.
Josh Byrnes: PLEEEEEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE RE-SIGN ADAM DUNN!!
by DbacksSkins on Sep 19, 2008 6:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just like Cubs fans
Who say every year that this is the year they will win the World Series.
by TwinnerA on Sep 19, 2008 7:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Don't they win either way?
Win the World Series and, hey, you just won the World Series.
Lose the World Series (or just don’t make it there) and, to a Cubs fan, that’s another year of delicious suffering and self-congratulation for being such a loyal fan.
"We...probed them all the way through. They're completely meat." — Terry Bisson
by Scrbl on Sep 19, 2008 8:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sorta like Manny Ramirez.
When he behaves himself, then, hey, he’s behaving himself. When he’s being a douchebag, hey, it’s just “Manny being Manny”.
Josh Byrnes: PLEEEEEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE RE-SIGN ADAM DUNN!!
by DbacksSkins on Sep 20, 2008 12:02 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

by 




















