Saturday, October 2, 2010

Padres Don't Stop Believin'

SAN FRANCISCO -- So, a few San Diego players sat in a circle in a happy-but-not-too-happy Padres clubhouse and they went over the possibilities. "No, no, no," Scott Hairston was saying. "If the Braves win tomorrow ..."

"No, I'm saying if the Braves LOSE tomorrow," Oscar Salazar said.

"Wait," Luke Gregerson said. "Are we talking about if they win or if they lose?'

"You know what?" Hairston said. "Let's just win, all right?"

This is the best plan at this point. The National League playoff picture is calculus at the moment, and the only thing that really matters for the Padres is winning. They came into Friday night cold, lost, on the brink of elimination. But they won an emotional game Friday night, with a crazed San Francisco crowd ready to celebrate. And they won an emotional game Saturday afternoon with Journey lead singer (and Giants fan) Steve Perry singing "Don't Stop Believin'" in the crowd.

And now, the Padres go into Sunday with three different playoff scenarios, a couple of them baffling enough to confuse Copernicus. Let's go over all the scenarios first and then we can talk about these amazing Padres.

Scenario 1: The Giants beat the Padres, and Atlanta beats Philadelphia.

-- This is one of two easy ones. Right now, Atlanta and San Diego are tied for the wildcard, and San Francisco is one game up on both. In this Giants win/Braves win scenario, the Giants will win the National League West and the Braves will be the wildcard. No extra games necessary.

Scenario 2: The Padres beat the Giants, and Philadelphia beats Atlanta.

-- This is the second easy one. In this case, the Padres would win the National League West (thanks to their head-to-head record against San Francisco), and the Giants will be the wildcard. The Braves are eliminated. I actually don't like scenario this much -- it seems to me that the division title should not be determined by head-to-head record. But this is the way things set up in baseball. Since both the Giants and Padres would qualify for the playoffs in this scenario, the baseball gurus have determined that it's not worth having a one-game playoff just to see which team is division champ and which team is wildcard. So, again, Padres would be champ; Giants would be wildcard.

Scenario 3: The Giants beat the Padres, and Philadelphia beats Atlanta.

-- OK, now we are dealing with an extra game. In this scenario, the Giants would be NL West division champs. And the Padres and Braves would play each other in a one-game wildcard playoff in Atlanta on Monday.

Scenario 4: The Padres beat the Giants, and Atlanta beats Philadelphia.

-- And finally the world-is-exploding scenario. If this happens (and it certainly could happen), then we have a three-way tie between San Francisco, San Diego, Atlanta. And that would mean the first three-team, two-game playoff in baseball history. In this scenario, the Giants and Padres would play a one-game playoff Monday evening in San Diego, with the winner claiming the National League West. The loser would then have to hop on a plane and play ANOTHER one-game playoff, this one against the Braves for the wildcard. The winner of THAT game, should it be San Diego or San Francisco, would then go to Philadelphia on Wednesday for the first game of the National League Division Series. This means it is not impossible that the Padres or Giants could play:

Sunday in San Francisco.

Monday in San Diego

Tuesday in Atlanta

Wednesday in Philadelphia.

Four cities in four days. I'd say that hasn't happened since Satchel Paige's barnstorming days.*

*This leads to a fascinating point -- it probably would be to the Phillies advantage to lose to the Braves Sunday. If they lose, there's a chance for this three-team, two-game playoff, which could utterly wreck the rotation of the team facing the Phillies in the playoffs. Baseball should not have a system where LOSING is better for a team than WINNING. But we're in uncharted territory here.

Oh, it's a cavalcade of fun in baseball these days, and the main reason is that these San Diego Padres simply refuse to accept the general consensus that they're simply not good enough to keep winning. The Padres, you will recall, lost 10 games in a row when they were leading the National League West by 6 1/2 games -- and I'd say more people were surprised by the 6 1/2 game lead than the 10-game losing streak. These Padres -- the great Adrian Gonzalez excepted -- have an anemic offense. They have pitched very well, but the rotation and bullpen are not exactly loaded with big names. Coming into this series, they lost three out of four to a playing-for-nothing-but-pride Cubs team. The expectation is that the Giants playing at home in front of hungry fans would put them out of their misery quickly.

But ... no. Friday night's game was about a great matchup between two great players, San Francisco pitcher Matt Cain and Adrian Gonzalez -- Gonzalez won, he turned on a fastball, set it soaring for a three-run homer, and the Padres won.

Saturday's game was sketchier. The Padres made a serious base-running blunder. The Giants manager got tossed. It wasn't exactly ballet. The Giants started Barry Zito who -- after pitching pretty well much of the season and winning a little bit of hard-earned and grudging respect from San Francisco fans who had written him and his $126 million contract off -- has in the last six weeks or so regressed again. He came into the game with the team having lost eight of his previous 10 starts, and his ERA over that stretch was 6.50.

Zito did not have it Saturday either. San Diego's Chris Denorfia and David Eckstein led off the game with back-to-back singles. At that point both managers decided it was time for a little battle of chess. First up was Padres manager Bud Black, who had his No. 3 hitter Miguel Tejada sacrifice bunt. Tejada IS a double-play machine -- he has led the league in double plays five of the last seven years -- but sacrifice bunting in the first inning with your No. 3 hitter? Ugh.

At that point, San Francisco manager Bruce Bochy topped him by intentionally walking Adrian Gonzalez to load the bases. Yes, Gonzalez IS the Padres best hitter by far and there is a feeling among baseball managers that, if you can help it, you don't want to let the other team's best player beat you. But, an intentional walk in the first inning of a crucial game? Ugh.

Bochy's "Ugh" turned out worse than Black's. After Ryan Ludwick hit an infield pop-up, Zito walked Yorvit Torrealba and Scott Hairston to give the Padres two runs. I would like to think that was the Baseball Gods rewarding the Padres for a first-inning intentional walk, but more likely it was Zito simply being unable to control his stuff, a common theme since he signed the big money deal. He gave up an unearned run in the third when Pablo Sandoval made a poor throw to second base. And then in the fourth he led off the inning by walking opposing pitcher Tim Stauffer, which ended his game.

"I thought (Zito's) stuff was fine," Bruce Bochy said mysteriously after the game before saying, "He just had trouble getting the ball where he wanted." Yes, well, there was that. Stauffer came around to score to give the Padres a 4-0 lead. And Stauffer pitched well, allowing one run in 6 1/3 innings. The Giants did get the winning run to the plate in the ninth but could not finish off the comeback*. "We're going to win tomorrow!" Steve Perry yelled from a radio booth.

*If you want details, the Giants were down 4-2 in the bottom of the ninth, and they had runners on first and third with only one out. Jose Guillen was at the plate. I have seen a lot of Jose Guillen in Kansas City, a whole lot of Jose Guillen, the good and the not-so-good, and I turned to the reporter next to me and said that it might be a good idea for the Giants to send pinch runner Darren Ford, who was at first base. I felt sure the Giants would do that. Ford has appeared in seven games this year, all as a pinch runner, he is apparently quite swift (he has stolen two out of three bases). But the Giants DID NOT send Ford on the first pitch.

"Uh-oh," I said. Guillen promptly hit into the easy 6-3 double play that ended the game. The writer looked at me like I was Nostradamus, but really I have just seen Jose Guillen hit a lot.

And now it's down to today, which could be one of the wilder days in National League history. The Padres have their best starter, Mat Latos, going against San Francisco's exciting and frustrating Jonathan Sanchez, who is striking out more than a batter per inning and also leading the National League in walks. There are those four crazy scenarios I listed above -- in Scenario 2 we could actually have champagne baths in BOTH clubhouses. I don't know that has ever happened in baseball history. But hey, in this crazy division, as the poet Steve Perry once sad: Any way you want it, that's the way you need it, anyway you want it. I think that says it all.

30 comments:

  1. Couple of things. First, Padres OPS+: 93. Giants OPS+ 94. AT&T has a reputation as a big pitcher's park, but it's nothing compared to Petco.

    Second, Tejada bunted on his own and was looking for a hit. I thought it was a pretty good play since he was half a step away from beating it out. It definitely wasn't a pure sacrifice attempt.

    ReplyDelete
  2. But if a team has to play four days in a row in four different cities, they'll have plenty of time to rest during the LDS. The Phillies series has more off days than an NBA playoff series.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Latos, who has not pitched well down the stretch, has beaten Sanchez twice this season by a score of 1-0. One of those games was a one hitter by Sanchez.

    It ought to be interesting tomorrow. I will be there. For Giant fans, it was just supposed to be a big party.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Here's what i don't get. And I know its a technicality, but bear with me..

    If we get the three-way tie scenario, and SF and SD play for the NL West, since that game is considered a regular season game, wouldn't the loser be behind ATL by a half-game and thus eliminated?

    I know. The semantics means its basically two additional -scheduled- regular season games, but its a fun thought.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Too bad neither pitcher would be under any pressure Sunday. Not like pitching for the Yankees anyway! ;-0

    ReplyDelete
  6. In 1968, the Tigers played four games in four cities in four days, and it was on the original schedule. On Sunday August 25, the Tigers finished a series in New York with a loss. On Monday, they beat Chicago in Milwaukee. (The White Sox were hosting one game versus each AL team at County Stadium.). On Tuesday, they lost to Chicago in Chicago and on Wednesday, they returned home to host the Angels.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I think TD is right. Any Giants-Padres extra game is a regular season game, and the loser ends up percentage points behind the Braves and out. Unless a rule has changed, I'm pretty sure that's how it works.

    ReplyDelete
  8. TD is right but MLB, looking ahead (a shock), issued a ruling on this a few years ago. Otherwise, it would be unfair to the teams in the division with two teams in it.

    ReplyDelete
  9. No, it would be a two-step playoff system, although the point about the first playoff eliminating the need for he second playoff is fascinating and one I've never heard before. It's odd to think there could be a one-game playoff between teams that don't have identical records.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Inconsistent MLB playoff rules are making this overly complicated. Why is it that in scenario 2 the Padres win the division with their head-to-head record against the Giants, but they don't in scenario 4? And if head-to-head record is a determing factor, why isn't the wild card also determined by head-to-head record?

    ReplyDelete
  11. The only reason the Padres would be allowed to be called division winners in Scenario 2 is because, by declaring them so, it does not keep the Giants out of the playoffs AND does not put either team at the disadvantage of having to play an extra game.

    ReplyDelete
  12. About the playoff rules, actually MLB has got it right for once. The rules are designed to maximize the drama of playoff games. A one-game playoff has no appeal at all if both teams are guaranteed a spot in the division series anyway. Hence the head-to-head tiebreaker in that scenario. On the other hand, in the three-way tie scenario, counting the one-game division title playoff result against the loser in the wild card race would not only be unfair, it would deprive fans of the drama of a one-game wild card playoff. Hence the current rule in that scenario.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Mat Latos has been nothing more than painfully unlucky the last six weeks (how does a 421 BAbip grab you?). He has been one of the best pitchers in baseball this year and at the ripe old age of 22 to boot. I'm definitely rooting for the Padres tonight (I'm a Cub, usually). Part of me would like to see the three way tie happen, but really I think Atlanta need to lose because they have blown this thing over and over again.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Sounds kinda foreigner to me, know what I mean?

    ReplyDelete
  15. The tiebreaker without a playoff happened to the Cardinals and Astros in 2001. They had a 3 game series at the end of the year, Houston took 2 of 3 to tie the division and won it on H2H record and got to play Atlanta. Cards wound up stuck with Arizona in a short series and couldn't touch Schilling. Of course if LaRussa didn't blow Game 3 at Busch there was no need for a Game 5, that team easily beats Atlanta, ugh

    ReplyDelete
  16. It used to be the case that, because Game 163 is technically a regular season game, then in a 3-way tie with 2 teams in one division and one team in another, the one team would get in automatically by a 1/2 game when the other 2 played off for the division title (and one of them lost, obviously).

    That scenario never actually happened but it looked like a possibility a bunch of years ago and so MLB changed the rules so that, in the event of a 3-way tie, the two teams in the same division would play-off for the division first, and then the loser would play the team from the other division for the wildcard.

    ReplyDelete
  17. The real sad thing is that the SD-SF game isn't televised because of stupid football.

    ReplyDelete
  18. So, under the three-way tie scenario, the NLDS could not begin until wednesday, correct? this would eliminate the phillies' ability to go with just their big three on full rest, would it not? i don't think the phillies are being pushed to 5 games anyway in the LDS, but maybe the possibility is enough for them to want to win today?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Bud Black said after the game that Tejada sacrificed in the first on his own. Go figure.

    ReplyDelete
  20. "Baseball should not have a system where LOSING is better for a team than WINNING."

    Well, there's the draft...

    ReplyDelete
  21. Hey Mr. Spaceman ... I think all of the playoff series start Wednesday (except one of the NL series which goes on Thursday). It would take eight days to play five games in the Phillies series.

    Looks like the Braves are taking care of business in their game, so we could have the three-way tie if the Padres win again.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Going a step further, cardsibc, although the Cardinals were declared the NL wild card in 2001, they continue to this day to claim to be the 2001 NL Central Division champions on their stadium signage, website, memorabilia, etc. Since the wild card format went into effect, there have been 3 other times where 2 clubs finished in a tie for their division's best record but one team was declared the wild card based on head-to-head play. Those three "declared" wild cards were the 2000 Mariners, 2005 Red Sox, and 2006 Dodgers. Yet unlike the 2001 Cardinals, none of those 3 franchises openly claim to be the division champions for the season in question. So the irony there is that the Cardinals, who have won some 10 World Series titles, falsely claim to be a Division champion, whereas the Mariners, who have won zero league titles and just 3 division titles, do not. With the Braves behind against the Phillies, this scenario doesn't look likely for 2010 Padres and Giants (Joe scenario #2), but it could happen in the NL East if both the Rays and Yankees either both win or both lose today, in which case the Rays would be AL East Division champs, and the Yankees would be the wild card.

    ReplyDelete
  23. If anyone's interested, the MLB rules for tiebreakers are listed here:
    http://www.baseball-reference.com/about/division_ties.shtml

    Scenario 5 is the one that would apply if the Padres, Giants, Braves all have identical records. But check out how convoluted some of the other scenarios are...scenario 4 is really something.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Scenario 4 is definitely really something. But better MLB should decide it in advance. (Has there ever been a three-way tie for a division title?) There is just no good way to break ties.

    As a Giants fan, I am very happy that this is all a moot point! Props to the Padres, who had a great season.

    ReplyDelete
  25. No lie, as I read this post a day after, the radio in next office is playing "Separate Ways" by Journey, which is too awesome to make up.

    ReplyDelete
  26. In what parallel universe are (were) two of the four playoff scenarios "baffling enough to confuse Copernicus"?

    A short series of if/then questions wouldn't make a particularly difficult word problem for a 3rd grader.

    If you can figure out the 'baffling' sequence of what to do if the stoplight is red, yellow or green you can figure out playoff possibilities.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I'm sure the 1972 Bosox will be happy to know that you can now finish 1/2 game behind and still be considered "tied" (scenario #4).

    If the SF-SD "play-in" game is considered regular season, then losing it means you are no longer tied with the Braves. Apparently, "close" now counts in MLB playoffs, along with horseshoes, hand grenades, and slow dancing.

    About as stupid as the current MLB definition of what constitutes a "no-hitter". (Hint: it doesn't just require the opposing team to have zero hits.)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-hitter#Definition

    @Walter: Agreed. It's not like this is rocket science. I so hate people who get all worked up about how "hard" it is to figure something like this out. An all-time favorite of mine was an a golf writer who was all stirred up because the calculation of the world golf rankings required division by 8.

    ReplyDelete
  28. As a Braves fan, I'm obviously happy about the way things turned out. But I don't think it would have been fair for the loser of a SF-SD game to lose out by a half game. The Red Sox situation in 1972 was an anomaly caused by the first player's strike that delayed the season and MLB's stupidity in having teams play different numbers of games. Granted, in the three way scenario, the Braves would still have played fewer games than the loser of the SF-SD playoff but at least it would be head-to-head. I would not have wanted the Braves to win by default.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Also, it makes no sense to have teams playoff for the division title if both teams are going to be in the playoffs anyway. What team would take that game seriously? They would be more interested in resting and getting ready for the division series. In some cases, it might be advantageous to lose the game depending on the matchup. MLB has it right in this case.

    ReplyDelete
  30. If only they had nine David Ecksteins....

    ReplyDelete