Deja Vu

[doveshack]

"It's Deja Vu all over again"

Remeber the Mets, FeRod giving it up, and the Giants falling just short after the a nice comeback. Me too.

Dusty baker blew it last night. He managed like this is a seven game series. He didn't go for the jugular.

If he would have, and he would have lost the Giants would be screwed right now, but they are not. They are 1-1. Now the Giants are going back home with a rested bullpen, and playing against a team that has already poured everything it had onto the playing field.

I think the smart money is on the Giants in game 3, and I think they will at least win 2 out of 3 at home.

Prediciton: Giants clinch at home.

 

[gecko]

If the Giants are going to win the Series at PacBell as you predict, they will have to win ALL THREE games at home.

But then, 2 out of 3 ain't bad.

 

[ferdville]

I don't mean to be testy because I have an obvious bias, but exactly what could Baker have done to go for the jugular? Could he have instructed his players to perhaps take a good swing at one of Frankie Rodriguez's pitches? Could he have taken Felix out in favor of Worrell, knowing that Salmon is hitting .500 against Worrell? Now, if he could have found a way to get Bonds up every 3 or 4 batters instead of 1 of 9, that might do it. Baker has used Felix that way all year - win or lose. And the Angel pen retired 12 of the last 13 Giant hitters. I doubt that lack of killer instinct can be blamed for the SF defeat.

 

[vchipsliu]

I don't think it's easy to win 3 in a row facing the angels.
But I do think the giants win 2 out of 3 at Pac Bell Park is very possible. Game 4 should be a good spot for the angels to steal one. Only factor is the condiction of John Lackey after throwing 30+ on Sunday. The angels will be in big trouble if they risk to start Jarrod Washburn after 3 days rest. Yes, he was fine for two previous 3 days rest. Believe me, not this time @ pac bell park.

:nono:

 

[doveshack]

ferdville,

Q: "I don't mean to be testy because I have an obvious bias, but exactly what could Baker have done to go for the jugular?"

A: Baker brings in Nen to pitch to Salmon, knowing that Barry will bat in the top of the ninth and that the Giants can win it with one swing of the bat or at least get the winning run on. Nen pitches the ninth. If the game goes to extra innings you treat it like a new game and have Livan pitch as long as it takes.

Do I think Baker should have done this? Maybe. He plays it by the book, "Its a 7 game series". I would play it like: "If we win this one, we will win the series. We will take a 2-game lead back to Pac Bell, and that is just too big of a deficit for the Angels to overcome on the road."

vchipsliu,

I agree that the Angel's bullpen is thin. Baker thinks this will give him the edge he needs. I hope so.

gecko,

There is a difference between a "smart money bet" and a "prediciton". I think the "smart money" is to play SF all three games at home, hoping to win 2 out of 3. I "predicit" that the Giants will win all 3 at home. See the difference?

Everybody,

Thanks for posting on my thread.

 

[gecko]

doveshack

doveshack

Your comments I was referring to had nothing to do with where you believe the "smart money" was going in Game 3.

I'd interpreted what you said as "I think they (the Giants) will at least win 2 out of 3 at home." That means you strongly believe, although not absolutely certain, that they will win 2, maybe 3, games at home.
Then you predict that SF will "clinch" (win the Series) at home. That didn't make sense at all, that you are sure they will win it all in SF, yet only win at least 2 out of the next 3 games. So that's where I was coming from. BTW, I don't know where the "smart money" is going in the next 3 games, but SF will be favored each time.

thanks.

 

[doveshack]

Gecko,

It looks like it will have to be 2 out of 3. As per your comments about my comments:

I believe (and still do) the Giants will win 2 out of 3 at home. I had a hunch (obviously wrong) that they would sweep. Do you see the difference?

 

[gecko]

doveshack,

I guess it's a question of semantics. Webster's has "think" as to believe, have an opinion, or to consider something. So you "think" the Giants/the smart money will take 2 out of 3.

Whereas you "predict" that they will sweep all three games at Pac Bell. Again, according to Webster's, to "predict" is to state what one believes WILL happen, or to foretell.

In other words, your "prediction" that SF will win all 3 home games is stronger and more certain than your "thinking" that the Giants will take 2 out of 3. Also, a "hunch" is not equivalent to a "prediction". A "hunch" means that you have a feeling that something will happen, something from the gut, if you will. If you "predict" something, then you'd have to back it up with research and a reasonable amount of certainty.

 

[doveshack]

Gecko,

Get your out of your :moon: .

It looks like my "prediction", no wait, my "smart money", no, am I getting this right? Now I'm confused.

It looks like the Giants will win 2 out of 3

 

[gecko]

doveshack

doveshack

If the Giants win Game 5, I "think" the Angels will win 1 out of 2 at home, because that's what the "smart money" is going.

Not only that, I "predict" that the Halos will clinch at home.

But then, I also have a "hunch" that the Giants will win it all.


dammit....now I'm as confused as you are! LOL.

 

[doveshack]

all in good fun.

 

[gecko]

classy post, doveshack. GL.

 

[Billy]

OK....nuff of that crap.......shack, I hope Bonds pulls a groin
muscle putting on his earring Saturday........gecko..............
GO ANGELS...........:toast: :drinky: :Yep:

 

[doveshack]

My mom always makes the joke that Barry's earring gets bigger with every homerun. Maybe he'll have an earring-related injury tomorrow after he jacks two out tonight.