I'm back
Due to business what with moving and all, plus general laziness in setting up my wireless router (yes, I could blog from my desktop, but for some reason, I like to stick to laptop blogging), plus other general laziness as it pertains to blogging, I have not posted in awhile. Well, I'm back.
In the near future, expect a resumption of the Simpsons Top 100 Countdown, information on competitive (and non-competitive) Senate races for the fall elections, along with other races that might be worth watching, general irreverence, baseball, and whatever else I happen to feel like posting.
As is my norm, I'll start with something on my mind right now. I was following the Cubs-Astros game online, and it went 18 innings, with the Cubs winning 8-6. The Cubs got five runs in the first five innings off Roger Clemens, and the Astros got six runs in the first six innings. The Cubs then got a run off Brad Lidge in the ninth, and the game went scoreless until the 18th. Seems rather unusual for a game that involved that much scoring in the first nine innings to go scoreless for so long in extra innings. The matter I wanted to comment on more, though, was use of pitchers. Dusty Baker (manager of the Cubs) used his last pitcher (and final bench player) to start the bottom of the 17th, having previously used a couple of pitchers as pinch-hitters. This struck me as a bad idea, as the game could have easily drug on for several more innings, and you should be prepared in case of injury or just have another pitcher ready to go if that one gives you five or six innings. On the other side, you had Phil Garner not use any starters in relief. Oswalt was apparently injured, and Pettite was scheduled to start the next game, but he had a couple other pitchers on his bench, and left in Borkowski, who had not previously pitched more than four innings in a game all season, for his sixth inning of work, in which he gave up two runs and took the loss. I'll admit, he'd pitched very effectively through his first five innings of work (allowing only one baserunner), but you can't much rely on your relievers to give you six innings of work. As I was not watching on the tele, I don't know if Garner had one of his starters getting ready in the bullpen or not, but it seems like a bad decision.
In other baseball news, the Diamondbacks-Rockies game is currently in the top of the 18th (and the Diamondbacks just scored to take a 2-1 lead). I can't recall another day in which two games each went 18 innings (or more). Fifteen, sure, and maybe even sixteen, but not eighteen. Ican't even recall, off the top of my head, a game lasting more than 18 innings since I started following baseball. I'm pretty sure there was a 19-inning affair in there somewhere, but I can't really recall it.
Off the top of my head, though, so major league records for longest game, by innings:
Major League record: 26 innings, ending in a 1-1 tie, and I believe it involved the Cubs, and it occured in the 1920's
American League record: 24 innings
National League expansion era record: 23 innings, Giants at Mets, and it was the second game of a doubleheader, sometime in the 1960's.
The Arizona-Colorado game just ended (without further scoring), and I 'll take that as a sign to finish this blog post as well. Oh, a note on pitching in that game: there was a general aversion to using starters, but the relievers had been used more sensibly, so it wasn't much of an issue, except perhaps for Ramirez of Colorado, who had thrown four innings and took the loss.
And for anyone wondering about how my fantasy team is doing, I'm in first place with 77.5 points (out of 90 possible), and second place (the good doctor) is at 66. So doin' pretty well.
In the near future, expect a resumption of the Simpsons Top 100 Countdown, information on competitive (and non-competitive) Senate races for the fall elections, along with other races that might be worth watching, general irreverence, baseball, and whatever else I happen to feel like posting.
As is my norm, I'll start with something on my mind right now. I was following the Cubs-Astros game online, and it went 18 innings, with the Cubs winning 8-6. The Cubs got five runs in the first five innings off Roger Clemens, and the Astros got six runs in the first six innings. The Cubs then got a run off Brad Lidge in the ninth, and the game went scoreless until the 18th. Seems rather unusual for a game that involved that much scoring in the first nine innings to go scoreless for so long in extra innings. The matter I wanted to comment on more, though, was use of pitchers. Dusty Baker (manager of the Cubs) used his last pitcher (and final bench player) to start the bottom of the 17th, having previously used a couple of pitchers as pinch-hitters. This struck me as a bad idea, as the game could have easily drug on for several more innings, and you should be prepared in case of injury or just have another pitcher ready to go if that one gives you five or six innings. On the other side, you had Phil Garner not use any starters in relief. Oswalt was apparently injured, and Pettite was scheduled to start the next game, but he had a couple other pitchers on his bench, and left in Borkowski, who had not previously pitched more than four innings in a game all season, for his sixth inning of work, in which he gave up two runs and took the loss. I'll admit, he'd pitched very effectively through his first five innings of work (allowing only one baserunner), but you can't much rely on your relievers to give you six innings of work. As I was not watching on the tele, I don't know if Garner had one of his starters getting ready in the bullpen or not, but it seems like a bad decision.
In other baseball news, the Diamondbacks-Rockies game is currently in the top of the 18th (and the Diamondbacks just scored to take a 2-1 lead). I can't recall another day in which two games each went 18 innings (or more). Fifteen, sure, and maybe even sixteen, but not eighteen. Ican't even recall, off the top of my head, a game lasting more than 18 innings since I started following baseball. I'm pretty sure there was a 19-inning affair in there somewhere, but I can't really recall it.
Off the top of my head, though, so major league records for longest game, by innings:
Major League record: 26 innings, ending in a 1-1 tie, and I believe it involved the Cubs, and it occured in the 1920's
American League record: 24 innings
National League expansion era record: 23 innings, Giants at Mets, and it was the second game of a doubleheader, sometime in the 1960's.
The Arizona-Colorado game just ended (without further scoring), and I 'll take that as a sign to finish this blog post as well. Oh, a note on pitching in that game: there was a general aversion to using starters, but the relievers had been used more sensibly, so it wasn't much of an issue, except perhaps for Ramirez of Colorado, who had thrown four innings and took the loss.
And for anyone wondering about how my fantasy team is doing, I'm in first place with 77.5 points (out of 90 possible), and second place (the good doctor) is at 66. So doin' pretty well.
posted by DC | 11:10 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home