<$BlogRSDURL$>
Proceeds from the ads below will be donated to the Bob Wuesthoff scholarship fund.

Wednesday, September 05, 2007

GA, Masher: Angels 4, A's 3

Jered Weaver had another of his bend-not-break games, giving up a run early on Shannon Stewart's leadoff homer in the first, but getting out of a bases-loaded, two-out jam with a strikeout of Jack Hannahan. He gave up another in the second on Shannon Stewart's RBI groundout, but got out of yet another men-on-the-corners, two out jam by getting Jack Cust to whiff.

In other words, aside from his 1-2-3 fourth, it was a fairly typical Jered Weaver outing, getting in and out of trouble but keeping the other guys at bay for the most part. The Angels got him off the hook for a potential loss in the third when Jeff Mathis singled and Howie Kendrick ripped his first home run since his game-winner on June 29 against the Orioles. GA took Gaudin deep after Vlad walked, and that, friends, was the ballgame, Frankie's little nervous meltdown in the ninth notwithstanding. After a terrific two-inning shutdown performance by Darren Oliver, K-Rod came in and gave up a pair of consecutive doubles to Rob Bowen, of all people, and Shannon Stewart. I might be tempted to say that Frankie's turning into Troy Percival with the way that he sometimes makes me nervous, but then I noticed that Percy, superficially (measured by ERA+, 180 vs. 151) is having a better season. Not a fair comparison, I know, but still kinda funny.

So the game ended with an Angel win, and as Matt Welch mentioned, it means all kinds of good things for the Angels. With a 12-3 Yankees win over the Mariners, the Angels have a 7.5-game lead in the AL West, the biggest division lead in the majors and bigger than the one the Halos had at this point in 1995 (shh). The Angels are also 26 games over .500, and they would set a franchise record if they finish that way (107-55). Anyway, there's a bunch more good stuff, and things are looking mighty happy for the boys... save for that jitter-inducing bullpen.

Update 9/7: Yes, they would be 94-68 if they finished 26 games over .500, but that just strikes me as an odd way of declaring the thing; .500, at the end of 162, is 81, but .500 at the end of n games is floor(n/2). That is, I can't be .500 if I lose 77, I must be better than that.

Yahoo Box

Labels: , ,


Comments:
They wouldn't set a record at 26 games over (they were 99-63 in 02, which is 36 over), but they certainly would if they won the rest of their games (which is what you appear to depict). Of course, that is 52 over, but I think that it's a ridiculous statement to make that a team can win out the rest of their games when there are more than 10 left, so I am assuming you didn't mean to put that record in there. A record of 94-68 would be 26 over at the end of the season.
 
81+26=107, not 99. 99-81=18 games over .500.
 
Rob I think you are having a math related brain fart... no offense.
 
Games over .500 is calculated by subtracting losses from wins, not a constant (81) from wins. So finishing 82-80 is finishing two games over .500, not one game over. Going 91-71 is finishing 20 games over, not 10. Etc.
 
we are on pace to finish at 97-65...
 
Ignorance duly noted.
 

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.



Newer›  ‹Older
This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?
Google

WWW 6-4-2