The ‘94 strike killed baseball for me forever, so far. I was a young guy, had Phillies season tickets with my brother. We had just experienced the Phillies wondrous ‘93 season and heartbreaking World Series loss.
Then came the strike, and I decided “a pox on both their houses.” I couldn’t even tell you a single MLB player now and I wouldn’t know who was in the World Series if not for you.
I try to hold my grandfather’s grudge for the Dodgers and hatred of the Yankees. It’s been an emotional season for me. What affects attendance? Here in Georgia, Turner Stadium was two blocks from my house of several years. So was the Cuban Mariel riot federal prison. I lived in an old internment camp house where we starved the Germans in WWI. Nobody remembers that.
In the 1990’s, both my neighbors were shot to death in separate incidents. They moved the Stadium to north of the city and are doing fine. I’m a quotidian, not a statistician, but I can count to two.
A happier observation is that baseball is a sport in which racial and ethnic advantage — I mean physical advantage —seems to play a smaller role than in many other athletic pursuits. Why would that be? The diverse sets of skills and body types needed for different roles? The relatively randomly spread of freaks like pitchers among different racial groups? The yearning for extreme merit-based immigrant tenacity? I don’t follow other sports except distance running, and clearly there is some advantage in the body types and perhaps lung training of certain African nation competitors, but baseball seems to - encompass - and unite us all.
When I was young, I ran every day on the beach for the week a year we spent in Montauk, then a backwater. I met that African man who ran the Olympics marathon barefoot. He took the time to encourage me and run a bit with me every day as he trained. He said he needed to win to feed his people. At their best, sports fill deep human needs, family needs, and survival needs.
There's a smattering percentage of middle aged/old ladies who seem to get into baseball late in life.
For example, my great-grandmother used to love to sit and listen to the local team on the radio, despite being a lifetime homemaker with a dozen kids all her life. Every year there's a story about some "season ticket holding" old woman who sits in the 3rd row of her local team every home game and has for a long time. And I remember reading a book back in high school about a family from Baltimore who's matriarch, who never liked sports and was completely straight, suddenly develops a love for the Orioles weirdly coinciding with her eyesight getting worse; I believe the character explains it as the game is like chess in her mind, and the stop-reposition-strategy-start aspect suddenly intrigued her in her golden years and even starts keeping score on a scorecard. These women aren't lesbians, nor were they jocks growing up. But something about the nature of the game, and the strategy, draws their minds in---likely related to how autistic guys are drawn in.
Now I know there have always been "Hatpin Mary" types who in middle and old age suddenly become fans of some sport or team out of the blue; most of it is harmless crushes on the players. But it always seems to me baseball gets the most lady boosters of a certain age, and they seem to enjoy it for a bit more than romantic dreams of youth with a ball player. Heck, even The Kids in the Hall noticed this phenomenon back in the 90s, although they attributed it to pent-up sexual frustration and lonliness:
Possibly apocryphal story told of an old lady at (as I recall it) a Cubs game:
In the season ticket holder section, someone notices the seat next to an old lady is empty despite the packed stadium. He politely enquires of her for the cause of this.
"It was my husband's seat, but he's dead now," she tells him.
"Oh, I'm sorry," he apologizes, "But surely another family member or even a friend could have come to take his seat?"
Undistracted from the game, she replies, "They're all at the funeral."
The actress Teresa Wright, who played Lou Gehrig's wife in "Pride of the Yankees", moved to Connecticut late in life and became a fan of the Yankees. She was sort of a mascot.
Just curious about your take on the rule changes of a few years ago that put a clock on the pitcher, ditched the 4 pitches to intentionally walk a batter, and limited the number of throws the pitcher can make to hold the runner on.
Apparently, all of these "improvements" were meant to speed up the game so that attention deficit disorder folks might decide they can tolerate baseball. With regard to the 4 pitch intentional walk, I've seen wild pitches in the old days and batters reach out to make contact... these exciting possibilities are now forever lost.
What may be less appreciated is that the changes were also meant to increase scoring. Rushing the pitcher and limiting his ability to hold a runner on first will inevitably lead to slight increases in average runs scored per game and distort baseball statistics. For example, I no longer think that any recent or new stolen base records can be considered legitimate. Your thoughts?
They've changed a lot of rules over the years, such as expanding the strike zone in 1963, then shrinking it in 1969. Yaz's .326-44-121 in 1967 would have been maybe .400-50-200 in 1930.
The rulemakers' job is to keep the game entertaining, despite everything MIT grads can do to it. Baseball historians' job is to put statistics in context of the time and place.
Do umpires still make their own strike zones? And were there times when what was acceptable changed? That could drastically interfere with cross-year comparisons.
Comparing statistics before they lowered the mound with after they lowered the mound seems the most obvious rule-caused break in the meaning of statistics.
Umpires are supposed to call a strike zone as it is written in the rule-books but as umpires are human, they have a propensity to have their own strike zone. There has been talk for some time that modern technology might take over the calling of balls and strikes. I don't think that would be an improvement and I would not support computer-umpires.
I think it would slow the game up. And how is even a computer to decide whether the black of the plate has been nicked. An umpire calling balls and strikes would dehumanize the sport. But the replay challenges have worked wonders. These days, you wouldn't have an outrageously bad call like in the Royals-Cardinals World Series in the early 80s cost a team, the Cards, a World Series. I'm not a homer on this one. I was rooting for the Royals and I hated the Cardinals and their carpetball baseball tactics. I was happy that the umpire made one of the worst calls in World Series history.
It obviously wouldn't slow anything up. It doesn't take more time for a computer to make its decision, it takes less. The result of every pitch could be on the board before the ball hits the catcher's glove. And "whether the black of the plate has been nicked" can be dicided with MUCH more accuracy by a computer than an umpire. It's not close. You need better arguments.
I know you like to joke about California's notoriously slow vote counting, but it's not really that funny that it is your vote that you are being defrauded of during that month-long adjust-a-palooza.
There's plenty on the ballot besides the presidency.
And the argument that "oh, the victim would have lost anyway" is neither a legal nor moral defense against a fraud indictment.
The electorally 'irrelevant' results of the popular vote are always bandied about as a moral cudgel, and can eventually have real world consequences, such as for whether the Electoral College is abolished.
Yes, it would. But a Constitutional amendment requires ratification by, currently, 38 states, so Wyoming's and the Dakotas' agreement isn't strictly necessary. I suspect, however, that considerably more than 12 states would be disadvantaged relative to the current situation by any such amendment.
I think baseball was just the first, but other sports have gotten pretty spergy. Football I think is actually catching up with baseball. Check out the website Pro Football Focus if you’re not familiar, you’ll see what I mean. They have advanced stats for every player in the NFL and D1 CFB, and rank them accordingly.
To be clear, every single team in the MLB, NFL, NBA, and NHL now has a fully staffed analytics department and I’m certain those jobs are highly competitive. I saw a tweet the other day from across the pond about how analytics is ruining premier league soccer. It’s really everywhere now.
I do think, with the exception of the nfl, this has made sports considerably more boring. As they all become strategically optimized there’s less variety in playing styles, both at the team and individual level. Ive found myself gravitating towards boxing in particular, which still has a variety of different fighting styles and will never be solved with analytics. The same things that made a great fighter in 1920 make a great fighter today.
Every high school has "that kid" who is really into sports and stats and probably has a touch of the tism. The problem is that there are only so many pro jobs to go around. If you were an actual athlete in high school (or better yet, college) you will have a definite leg up, and the people doing the hiring are jock sniffers, almost by definition. If you are a girl who was an athlete and wants to enter the field, you can write your ticket.
I think Steve could add Indianapolis and Salt Lake City to the list of possible relocations of baseball teams. The two Florida teams should relocate. The Chicago White Sox, located in the less affluent and less white part of Chicago, also has considered moving but it would be a sad day for baseball traditionalists to lose the Chicago White Sox.
My parents bought me my first subscription to the Sporting News when I was about nine. I have followed baseball since even though I was a better football and basketball player. Baseball has changed a lot since 1969. Baseball is a much more power game these days. Power hitters and power pitchers. Players like Tony Gwynn and Rod Carew would be encouraged today to give up thirty points on their batting averages to add ten home runs a year. Caribbeans, especially Dominicans, are about 30 % of the players and they all wear chains around their necks. Four-man rotations have led to five-man rotations and pitching by committee. Baseball has adopted the swagger of football and basketball to my great distress. High fives, gyrations, bat flips and dance moves are now part of the game. The era of handshakes are over.
Baseball's biggest problem is that fewer American boys play it. Most blacks don't care one whit about baseball. Young white boys aren't much more supportive. Baseball aficionados tend to be older white men. Like football, I wonder if baseball might become a large, but declining, sport due to fertility decline, the lack of whites playing it, and the Hispanicization of the American population whose favorite sport is soccer.
The number of high school students playing football has been going down for some time while viewership of the NFL has been going up. Being a fan and playing the game are more disconnected now than ever.
Part of the decrease in high school students declining football participation is the growing percentage of students who are Hispanic. They have much less interest in playing football or any high school sport. Asian-Americans students also are less interested. Texas, consider the top state for high school football, is losing participants due to changing demographics.
Actually, not playing sports in the most common. Mexican-Americans have no interest in soccer and little interest in football below the professional level.
On the other hand, I suspect a lot of white kids and near white kids are focusing on baseball. For example, 50 years ago I presume that 6'5" Freddie Freeman, 6'6" Giancarlo Stanton, and 6'7" Aaron Judge all would have focused on basketball or football, but now they play baseball.
Baseball is the wiser choice if one plays multiple sports. Brian Jordan was a fine safety for the Atlanta Falcons but also played baseball for the Cards and Braves. He gave up football after a few seasons and played baseball exclusively. Jordan played baseball until he was nearly forty. Baseball offers longer careers and less physical damage, especially to the brain.
Steve, congrats on your Dodgers' stirring WS victory.
It's a great win for a team that seems to have less-obnoxious-than-average stars. Freddie Freeman in particular seems a decent sort.
I've hated the Yankees for the entirety of my sentient life, but I do feel sorry for a couple of their stars.
Aaron Judge also seems like an okay guy, and after one of the greatest hitting seasons ever, he had what will surely be considered one of the very worst post-seasons. He didn't hit much at all, until game 5, when he homered, but he'll be remembered instead for his shocking error in the fifth inning. If he makes that routine catch, it's very likely the Yankees win the game.
And as a former pitcher, I feel very sorry for Gerrit Cole. That fifth inning was *Not His Fault*. He deserved to get out of the fifth with another zero on the board. He ended up essentially having to get six outs instead of three, given there were two called errors and one bonehead play (in which he was admittedly involved) that really was just as much of an error as the ones that fit the rulebook definition. I can recall similar situations when I pitched back in high school -- you do everything you're supposed to, and the ball just doesn't bounce the right way. It's infuriating, and makes it hard to keep emotional control. Cole looked visibly discombobulated by the end of that inning.
If the Dodgers get even some of their injured pitching back next year, they'll be overwhelming favorites to repeat. But then we know, given the numerous rounds of playoffs and inherently-unpredictable-in-the-short-run nature of baseball, who knows what will happen?
Anyway, enjoy it for now. Maybe this will give a boost to ur-Dodger Steve Garvey's senate campaign . . . .
An addendum: the baseball star I feel most sorry for is Mike Trout. After another forgettable mostly-injured late-career season, it must be hard for him to watch his former teammate Shohei go on to LA glory while he gradually fades away down in OC.
You are Gerrit Cole, you are pitching great, but then you let the bases get loaded with no outs because your superstar centerfielder drops a simple line drive and your shortstop fails to throw out a simple out. So then you strike out out the Dodgers #9 hitter (who isn't bad), then you strike out on some awesome pitches Shohei Ohtani, and then you get Mookie Betts to hit a squibber to first. But you and Anthomy Rizzo have a complete breakdown, probably due to exhaustion, so you give up five unearned runs. Then you come back and pitch into the middle of the 7th inning, but your bullpen still fails to stop the Dodgers in the late innings.
Cole did pretty much everything a starting pitcher should do other than cover first on Betts' weirdly spinning grounder, but his team wound up losing both games.
It's a little like Bill Buckner failing to make the play in 1986. Just as Mookie Wilson might have beaten Buckner to the bag in the 6th game of the 1986 World Series, Mookie Betts might have beaten either Anthony Rizzo or Gerrit Cole to first base in the fifth game of 2024.
I can still remember where I was on Game 6, 1986. At a sports bar in Indianapolis. My engineering partner and I were on a MidWest trip visiting Chrysler dealerships regarding the underground storage tanks. Bill Buckner, limp-legged, let a grounder get under his legs which led to a Mets win. Poor Buckner. He was a very good but not great player and he'll be best remembered for his error in Game 6, 1986.
Be interesting whether Giancarlo Stanton or Mike Trout gets to 500 homers. Clearly, Trout is the greater player, but Stanton's 18 homers in the post-season is impressive.
Stanton has three years left on his Yankees contract. The Angels should trade Trout to the Dodgers for three or four prospects. The Angels are on a scale of ineptitude similar to the Toronto Maple Leafs and Washington Wizards.
Being neither autistic nor interested in baseball I have no ideas.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMcfzTTKTaQ
Homer Simpson watches baseball sober
There always has to be one person who is too cool for school.
To me, there is nothing like baseball stats, and there is nothing like baseball pre-strike. It is like life before the great awokening.
The 1994 strike really slowed baseball attendance growth just as it was exploding.
A lot of beautiful new stadiums from 1992's Camden Yards in Baltimore onward.
The 1981 strike didn't seem to impact the popularity of the game as much.
The ‘94 strike killed baseball for me forever, so far. I was a young guy, had Phillies season tickets with my brother. We had just experienced the Phillies wondrous ‘93 season and heartbreaking World Series loss.
Then came the strike, and I decided “a pox on both their houses.” I couldn’t even tell you a single MLB player now and I wouldn’t know who was in the World Series if not for you.
I am in a similar place. I know Ohtani because he is like the second coming, but I have been totally unplugged since the strike.
I was not there for the '81 strike, but in '94 I went from eating, breathing and sleeping baseball to no longer caring.
I have been to a few games since then, they have been pleasant enough, but the passion never came back.
I will agree with you on Camden Yards, that felt like a real turning point for stadia.
I try to hold my grandfather’s grudge for the Dodgers and hatred of the Yankees. It’s been an emotional season for me. What affects attendance? Here in Georgia, Turner Stadium was two blocks from my house of several years. So was the Cuban Mariel riot federal prison. I lived in an old internment camp house where we starved the Germans in WWI. Nobody remembers that.
In the 1990’s, both my neighbors were shot to death in separate incidents. They moved the Stadium to north of the city and are doing fine. I’m a quotidian, not a statistician, but I can count to two.
A happier observation is that baseball is a sport in which racial and ethnic advantage — I mean physical advantage —seems to play a smaller role than in many other athletic pursuits. Why would that be? The diverse sets of skills and body types needed for different roles? The relatively randomly spread of freaks like pitchers among different racial groups? The yearning for extreme merit-based immigrant tenacity? I don’t follow other sports except distance running, and clearly there is some advantage in the body types and perhaps lung training of certain African nation competitors, but baseball seems to - encompass - and unite us all.
When I was young, I ran every day on the beach for the week a year we spent in Montauk, then a backwater. I met that African man who ran the Olympics marathon barefoot. He took the time to encourage me and run a bit with me every day as he trained. He said he needed to win to feed his people. At their best, sports fill deep human needs, family needs, and survival needs.
Because baseball, like football, is a turn-based RPG.
There's a smattering percentage of middle aged/old ladies who seem to get into baseball late in life.
For example, my great-grandmother used to love to sit and listen to the local team on the radio, despite being a lifetime homemaker with a dozen kids all her life. Every year there's a story about some "season ticket holding" old woman who sits in the 3rd row of her local team every home game and has for a long time. And I remember reading a book back in high school about a family from Baltimore who's matriarch, who never liked sports and was completely straight, suddenly develops a love for the Orioles weirdly coinciding with her eyesight getting worse; I believe the character explains it as the game is like chess in her mind, and the stop-reposition-strategy-start aspect suddenly intrigued her in her golden years and even starts keeping score on a scorecard. These women aren't lesbians, nor were they jocks growing up. But something about the nature of the game, and the strategy, draws their minds in---likely related to how autistic guys are drawn in.
Now I know there have always been "Hatpin Mary" types who in middle and old age suddenly become fans of some sport or team out of the blue; most of it is harmless crushes on the players. But it always seems to me baseball gets the most lady boosters of a certain age, and they seem to enjoy it for a bit more than romantic dreams of youth with a ball player. Heck, even The Kids in the Hall noticed this phenomenon back in the 90s, although they attributed it to pent-up sexual frustration and lonliness:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzjJ27yaeyI
Possibly apocryphal story told of an old lady at (as I recall it) a Cubs game:
In the season ticket holder section, someone notices the seat next to an old lady is empty despite the packed stadium. He politely enquires of her for the cause of this.
"It was my husband's seat, but he's dead now," she tells him.
"Oh, I'm sorry," he apologizes, "But surely another family member or even a friend could have come to take his seat?"
Undistracted from the game, she replies, "They're all at the funeral."
Hilarious.
The actress Teresa Wright, who played Lou Gehrig's wife in "Pride of the Yankees", moved to Connecticut late in life and became a fan of the Yankees. She was sort of a mascot.
Just curious about your take on the rule changes of a few years ago that put a clock on the pitcher, ditched the 4 pitches to intentionally walk a batter, and limited the number of throws the pitcher can make to hold the runner on.
Apparently, all of these "improvements" were meant to speed up the game so that attention deficit disorder folks might decide they can tolerate baseball. With regard to the 4 pitch intentional walk, I've seen wild pitches in the old days and batters reach out to make contact... these exciting possibilities are now forever lost.
What may be less appreciated is that the changes were also meant to increase scoring. Rushing the pitcher and limiting his ability to hold a runner on first will inevitably lead to slight increases in average runs scored per game and distort baseball statistics. For example, I no longer think that any recent or new stolen base records can be considered legitimate. Your thoughts?
They've changed a lot of rules over the years, such as expanding the strike zone in 1963, then shrinking it in 1969. Yaz's .326-44-121 in 1967 would have been maybe .400-50-200 in 1930.
The rulemakers' job is to keep the game entertaining, despite everything MIT grads can do to it. Baseball historians' job is to put statistics in context of the time and place.
Do umpires still make their own strike zones? And were there times when what was acceptable changed? That could drastically interfere with cross-year comparisons.
Comparing statistics before they lowered the mound with after they lowered the mound seems the most obvious rule-caused break in the meaning of statistics.
Umpires are supposed to call a strike zone as it is written in the rule-books but as umpires are human, they have a propensity to have their own strike zone. There has been talk for some time that modern technology might take over the calling of balls and strikes. I don't think that would be an improvement and I would not support computer-umpires.
Why wouldn't it be an improvement?
I think it would slow the game up. And how is even a computer to decide whether the black of the plate has been nicked. An umpire calling balls and strikes would dehumanize the sport. But the replay challenges have worked wonders. These days, you wouldn't have an outrageously bad call like in the Royals-Cardinals World Series in the early 80s cost a team, the Cards, a World Series. I'm not a homer on this one. I was rooting for the Royals and I hated the Cardinals and their carpetball baseball tactics. I was happy that the umpire made one of the worst calls in World Series history.
It obviously wouldn't slow anything up. It doesn't take more time for a computer to make its decision, it takes less. The result of every pitch could be on the board before the ball hits the catcher's glove. And "whether the black of the plate has been nicked" can be dicided with MUCH more accuracy by a computer than an umpire. It's not close. You need better arguments.
I know you like to joke about California's notoriously slow vote counting, but it's not really that funny that it is your vote that you are being defrauded of during that month-long adjust-a-palooza.
as regards the Presidential vote it makes no difference when Harris gets CA's electoral vote, so you're not being defrauded of anything.
Now, when the courts ignore voting results on Propositions, THAT is fraud.
There's plenty on the ballot besides the presidency.
And the argument that "oh, the victim would have lost anyway" is neither a legal nor moral defense against a fraud indictment.
The electorally 'irrelevant' results of the popular vote are always bandied about as a moral cudgel, and can eventually have real world consequences, such as for whether the Electoral College is abolished.
Red votes matter. Even in California.
No, they don't matter. Not for who gets to be president.
And the Electoral College being abolished is not happening. As something to worry about that's in the same range as an asteroid strike.
I believe scrapping the Electoral College would require a Constitutional Amendment. Why would Wyoming and the Dakotas agree to such a thing?
Yes, it would. But a Constitutional amendment requires ratification by, currently, 38 states, so Wyoming's and the Dakotas' agreement isn't strictly necessary. I suspect, however, that considerably more than 12 states would be disadvantaged relative to the current situation by any such amendment.
I think baseball was just the first, but other sports have gotten pretty spergy. Football I think is actually catching up with baseball. Check out the website Pro Football Focus if you’re not familiar, you’ll see what I mean. They have advanced stats for every player in the NFL and D1 CFB, and rank them accordingly.
To be clear, every single team in the MLB, NFL, NBA, and NHL now has a fully staffed analytics department and I’m certain those jobs are highly competitive. I saw a tweet the other day from across the pond about how analytics is ruining premier league soccer. It’s really everywhere now.
I do think, with the exception of the nfl, this has made sports considerably more boring. As they all become strategically optimized there’s less variety in playing styles, both at the team and individual level. Ive found myself gravitating towards boxing in particular, which still has a variety of different fighting styles and will never be solved with analytics. The same things that made a great fighter in 1920 make a great fighter today.
> I’m certain those jobs are highly competitive
Every high school has "that kid" who is really into sports and stats and probably has a touch of the tism. The problem is that there are only so many pro jobs to go around. If you were an actual athlete in high school (or better yet, college) you will have a definite leg up, and the people doing the hiring are jock sniffers, almost by definition. If you are a girl who was an athlete and wants to enter the field, you can write your ticket.
I think Steve could add Indianapolis and Salt Lake City to the list of possible relocations of baseball teams. The two Florida teams should relocate. The Chicago White Sox, located in the less affluent and less white part of Chicago, also has considered moving but it would be a sad day for baseball traditionalists to lose the Chicago White Sox.
My parents bought me my first subscription to the Sporting News when I was about nine. I have followed baseball since even though I was a better football and basketball player. Baseball has changed a lot since 1969. Baseball is a much more power game these days. Power hitters and power pitchers. Players like Tony Gwynn and Rod Carew would be encouraged today to give up thirty points on their batting averages to add ten home runs a year. Caribbeans, especially Dominicans, are about 30 % of the players and they all wear chains around their necks. Four-man rotations have led to five-man rotations and pitching by committee. Baseball has adopted the swagger of football and basketball to my great distress. High fives, gyrations, bat flips and dance moves are now part of the game. The era of handshakes are over.
Baseball's biggest problem is that fewer American boys play it. Most blacks don't care one whit about baseball. Young white boys aren't much more supportive. Baseball aficionados tend to be older white men. Like football, I wonder if baseball might become a large, but declining, sport due to fertility decline, the lack of whites playing it, and the Hispanicization of the American population whose favorite sport is soccer.
The number of high school students playing football has been going down for some time while viewership of the NFL has been going up. Being a fan and playing the game are more disconnected now than ever.
Football is getting more gladiatorial.
Part of the decrease in high school students declining football participation is the growing percentage of students who are Hispanic. They have much less interest in playing football or any high school sport. Asian-Americans students also are less interested. Texas, consider the top state for high school football, is losing participants due to changing demographics.
Right. Hispanics have little interest in football. Soccer is their sport.
Actually, not playing sports in the most common. Mexican-Americans have no interest in soccer and little interest in football below the professional level.
On the other hand, I suspect a lot of white kids and near white kids are focusing on baseball. For example, 50 years ago I presume that 6'5" Freddie Freeman, 6'6" Giancarlo Stanton, and 6'7" Aaron Judge all would have focused on basketball or football, but now they play baseball.
Baseball is the wiser choice if one plays multiple sports. Brian Jordan was a fine safety for the Atlanta Falcons but also played baseball for the Cards and Braves. He gave up football after a few seasons and played baseball exclusively. Jordan played baseball until he was nearly forty. Baseball offers longer careers and less physical damage, especially to the brain.
Steve, congrats on your Dodgers' stirring WS victory.
It's a great win for a team that seems to have less-obnoxious-than-average stars. Freddie Freeman in particular seems a decent sort.
I've hated the Yankees for the entirety of my sentient life, but I do feel sorry for a couple of their stars.
Aaron Judge also seems like an okay guy, and after one of the greatest hitting seasons ever, he had what will surely be considered one of the very worst post-seasons. He didn't hit much at all, until game 5, when he homered, but he'll be remembered instead for his shocking error in the fifth inning. If he makes that routine catch, it's very likely the Yankees win the game.
And as a former pitcher, I feel very sorry for Gerrit Cole. That fifth inning was *Not His Fault*. He deserved to get out of the fifth with another zero on the board. He ended up essentially having to get six outs instead of three, given there were two called errors and one bonehead play (in which he was admittedly involved) that really was just as much of an error as the ones that fit the rulebook definition. I can recall similar situations when I pitched back in high school -- you do everything you're supposed to, and the ball just doesn't bounce the right way. It's infuriating, and makes it hard to keep emotional control. Cole looked visibly discombobulated by the end of that inning.
If the Dodgers get even some of their injured pitching back next year, they'll be overwhelming favorites to repeat. But then we know, given the numerous rounds of playoffs and inherently-unpredictable-in-the-short-run nature of baseball, who knows what will happen?
Anyway, enjoy it for now. Maybe this will give a boost to ur-Dodger Steve Garvey's senate campaign . . . .
An addendum: the baseball star I feel most sorry for is Mike Trout. After another forgettable mostly-injured late-career season, it must be hard for him to watch his former teammate Shohei go on to LA glory while he gradually fades away down in OC.
You are Gerrit Cole, you are pitching great, but then you let the bases get loaded with no outs because your superstar centerfielder drops a simple line drive and your shortstop fails to throw out a simple out. So then you strike out out the Dodgers #9 hitter (who isn't bad), then you strike out on some awesome pitches Shohei Ohtani, and then you get Mookie Betts to hit a squibber to first. But you and Anthomy Rizzo have a complete breakdown, probably due to exhaustion, so you give up five unearned runs. Then you come back and pitch into the middle of the 7th inning, but your bullpen still fails to stop the Dodgers in the late innings.
Cole did pretty much everything a starting pitcher should do other than cover first on Betts' weirdly spinning grounder, but his team wound up losing both games.
It's a little like Bill Buckner failing to make the play in 1986. Just as Mookie Wilson might have beaten Buckner to the bag in the 6th game of the 1986 World Series, Mookie Betts might have beaten either Anthony Rizzo or Gerrit Cole to first base in the fifth game of 2024.
Speed helps.
Maybe I’m wrong, but speed has been decreasing as a factor for runners.
I can still remember where I was on Game 6, 1986. At a sports bar in Indianapolis. My engineering partner and I were on a MidWest trip visiting Chrysler dealerships regarding the underground storage tanks. Bill Buckner, limp-legged, let a grounder get under his legs which led to a Mets win. Poor Buckner. He was a very good but not great player and he'll be best remembered for his error in Game 6, 1986.
Be interesting whether Giancarlo Stanton or Mike Trout gets to 500 homers. Clearly, Trout is the greater player, but Stanton's 18 homers in the post-season is impressive.
I wish them both well.
Stanton has three years left on his Yankees contract. The Angels should trade Trout to the Dodgers for three or four prospects. The Angels are on a scale of ineptitude similar to the Toronto Maple Leafs and Washington Wizards.