Game 46, Mariners at Tigers

DMZ · May 20, 2008 at 3:08 pm · Filed Under Mariners 

4:05 our time. Silva v Verlander.

CF-L Ichiro
3B-R Beltre
2B-R Lopez
LF-L Ibanez
DH-B Vidro
1B-R Sexson
C-R Johjima
RF-R Balentien
SS-R Betancourt

Lopez-Ibanez-Vidro? Really?

CF-L Granderson
2B-R Polanco
DH-R Sheffield (with a batting average under Vidro’s!)
RF-R Ordonez
1B-R Cabrera
3B-B Guillen
LF-L Joyce
SS-R Renteria
C-R Rodriguez (currently the only listed catcher on the Tigers roster)

Four righties in a row (I had to go back to the roster page do double-check that) — no wonder they’re struggling so much.


148 Responses to “Game 46, Mariners at Tigers”

  1. jspektor on May 20th, 2008 6:06 pm

    98 –

    Not to mention the infamous “We’ll take the ball, and we’re going to score.” Al Harris had other plans. I can name more. It helps me cope … I must stop.

  2. fetish on May 20th, 2008 6:06 pm

    OK, how many wins does a “good team playing poorly” get?

    Let’s say, the team projected itself at, 89 wins, the same as last year. That’s reasonable. ish. That’s 63 wins over the REST of the season, and would put them at 81-81 over the season. So that’s not too bad.

    But… we’re only ‘on pace’ for 65 wins. Our Pythagorean prediction is 69 wins.

    Again, how many wins does a “good team playing poorly” get? Clearly, not in the 60-win range. I’d say, anything under 75 wins represents “complete disaster that has no explanation other than everyone was flat out wrong when their jobs were to be right”. 75-81 wins is “an unlucky disappointment”. Anything more than 81 wins will represent “the team pulling together to salvage the season”.

    I’ve never really rooted for my team to lose before, but given the proclivities in our management, I am hoping that what we see is what we get. Right now.

  3. Steve T on May 20th, 2008 6:07 pm

    Lopez is just fucking with his head now.

  4. pygmalion on May 20th, 2008 6:07 pm

    You just don’t mean the same thing by “choking” that I do.

  5. jspektor on May 20th, 2008 6:09 pm

    104 – Would you call the 2001 Seattle Mariners baseball organization a choke job?

  6. pygmalion on May 20th, 2008 6:10 pm


  7. pygmalion on May 20th, 2008 6:11 pm

    Incidentally, the interception against Green Bay was – again – due to the receiver, who ran the wrong route.

  8. pygmalion on May 20th, 2008 6:12 pm

    For all the screwy things that Hasselbeck has done in games big and small, that one wasn’t on him.

  9. nwtrev on May 20th, 2008 6:13 pm

    “The amazing thing about baseball is that no matter how many games you win, unless you win a World Series, you’re going to feel disappointment.” – Seattle Mariners Manager Lou Piniella

  10. joser on May 20th, 2008 6:14 pm

    Ugh, nothing like forgetting the team is on the road, tuning in to pick up a bit of the pre-game, and discovering not only is it on, it’s already out of reach.

    No one is going to keep saying that we have five aces anymore.

    Who the hell was saying that? Even in the deepest depths of offseason optimism, by the most deeply delusional fans, I didn’t hear that. We heard “1-2 punch” a lot; but even the people who made positive noises judging by contract dollars instead of any other numbers weren’t calling Silva an ace. And after that… what, Batista? Even as the team leader in wins last year he didn’t get called an ace.

    Then again, I don’t read the PI blog comments precisely because such clueless mental illness gets promoted as facts, but even there it’s hard to imagine anyone straigh-facedly typing “five aces” without the benefit of psilocybin.

  11. irish on May 20th, 2008 6:15 pm

    I always love to see Carlos Guillen stick it to the M’s.

  12. pygmalion on May 20th, 2008 6:15 pm

    McLaren was saying it.

  13. jspektor on May 20th, 2008 6:16 pm

    I guess we are on a similar page … but how can you say the ‘Hawks didn’t choke.

    It was 04 and it was ‘sure hands’ bobby engram who dropped that OT forcing pass

    We talked about big #8’s comments in Green Bay … I haven’t even mentioned the disaster that was Super Bowl XL (Josh Brown miss FG, dropped passes, 75 plus yard gains from scrimmage. I can even figure out how those loser Steelers beat us. Big Ben put up the worst numbers for a QB I think in history)

    It was 06 when we choked in Chicago having won that game in regulation. Losing it in OT.

    Last year we were up 14-0 on the road, and seemed to take the fat one in that game.

    Let’s see… pretty much every George Karl team choked. That 96 team went up against MJ’s bulls though …

    I would say only non choke jobs 79 supes, 91 husky co champs, ’95 Mariners, mayyyybe ’96 Supes.

  14. G-Man on May 20th, 2008 6:16 pm

    I have something positive to say about this rout.

    Since it’s on the road, at least it saves the pen from pitching the ninth.

  15. Tom in Edmonds on May 20th, 2008 6:17 pm

    114… We have a Bullpen?

  16. joser on May 20th, 2008 6:19 pm

    Oh, ok. That makes sense. We weren’t talking about delusional, clueless fans. We’re talking about someone whose entire job is to accurately evaluate and employ the talent of his players (and, in the worst case, keep his mouth shut a la the Thumper Imperative).

  17. jspektor on May 20th, 2008 6:20 pm

    This M’s game is downright U-G-L-Y.

    I don’t even know what to do with myself these days. Don’t get me wrong … when’s Hawks season?

    They at least have a good organization … regardless of if one thinks they choke or not.

  18. pygmalion on May 20th, 2008 6:22 pm

    I say that the ‘Hawks didn’t choke because in general they were playing teams either as good as or better than themselves, and what’s more, when they were in the crunch, they made plays as often as they failed to make them. That’s frustrating but I don’t know that it is choking.

    I completely agree about Karl’s Sonics.

    You are forgetting the 2000 Husky team, which was the absolute opposite of chokers. Except for the criminals on the team, some of whom were literally chokers. But enough of that.

  19. pygmalion on May 20th, 2008 6:24 pm

    Okay, my last ‘Hawk comment: I think that I would call them “maddeningly inconsistent” rather than “chokers.”

  20. jspektor on May 20th, 2008 6:25 pm

    118 – Yeah you are right that 2000 rose bowl team certainly was a special team … even if some were criminals.

    Maybe the Mariners should bring in some criminals and have the City cover it up? I would be for it.

  21. red_devil20 on May 20th, 2008 6:25 pm

    Wow, that was a gritty base hit

  22. scott19 on May 20th, 2008 6:27 pm

    I always love to see Carlos Guillen stick it to the M’s.

    You took the words right out of my mouth!

  23. jspektor on May 20th, 2008 6:30 pm

    You know your team has issues when Cairo PH’s for Sexson.

    Never thought when we signed Richie I would see that happen.

  24. joser on May 20th, 2008 6:36 pm

    This is like the pine-beetle-infested forests of BC. So much expensive dead wood, so little hope.

  25. pgreyy on May 20th, 2008 6:38 pm

    Pick your poison time…

    If you’re under 40, you’ll probably go with this ironic “Dumb & Dumber” response.

    We’re only down by 8 runs!

    “So, you’re telling me there’s a chance…”

    BUT…if you’re 40 or older, you remember Bill Murray in “Meatballs”.


    …and have the M’s run out, pants the Tigers…and then tear off in the team bus.

  26. Steve T on May 20th, 2008 6:41 pm

    It was painfully obvious to a lot of people here the day Richie was signed that this day would come, that he would wind up being a huge albatross by the end of his contract. Right on schedule.

  27. irish on May 20th, 2008 6:43 pm

    Carlos Guillen’s averages and salary since the M’s traded him to the Tigers for a Jim Pressley Topps rookie and some old Playboys:

    2004: .318/.379/.542 $2.5M
    2005: .320/.368/.434 $4M
    2006: .320/.400/.519 $5M
    2007: .296/.357/.502 $5M
    2008: .284/.364/.426 $12M (an ill-advised extension, perhaps)

    Just a reminder for everybody.

  28. scott19 on May 20th, 2008 6:48 pm

    127: Yes, but that one season of Ramon Santiago’s handful of at-bats and oh-so-veteran utilitiness was SOOOOOOO worth it!

  29. Steve T on May 20th, 2008 6:51 pm

    Where the hell would we have put him? There’s no room on this team for .400 OBP guys. Or .500 SLG guys. We’re overstocked already. He’s got to bring something else to the table, and frankly Carlos never seemed like a back-slappin’, gut-punchin’ gritty dude’s dude to me.

  30. scott19 on May 20th, 2008 6:51 pm

    And yet, I somehow just knew that they’d waste all their runs for the week YET AGAIN in another game like this. >:(

  31. red_devil20 on May 20th, 2008 6:54 pm

    Boy, I sure am glad this Pinch Hitter is Cairo and not Clement.

  32. scott19 on May 20th, 2008 6:55 pm

    Though, actually, it’s too bad that Leyland didn’t still have Jose Mesa on the roster…

    Then, we actually would still have a chance!

  33. CC03 on May 20th, 2008 6:56 pm


    or Norton.

  34. red_devil20 on May 20th, 2008 6:58 pm

    Oh yeah, I tried to wipe that roster move from my memory.

  35. Sklyansky on May 20th, 2008 6:58 pm

    What a shocking conclusion. I thought it was Vidro that would GDP.

  36. joser on May 20th, 2008 6:58 pm

    Odds of winning have quadrupled so far this inning, from 1% to 4%. Gotta love that Tigers bullpen. Or maybe it’s McLaren’s fantastic managing?

  37. pgreyy on May 20th, 2008 6:59 pm

    Ahhh yes, you can smell the grittiness from here.

    Does it hurt worse getting blown out or thinking you’ve got a chance to catch up and still losing?

    Or are we numb to any and all pain caused by anything specifically happening in any particular game this season?

  38. Steve T on May 20th, 2008 6:59 pm


  39. JMHawkins on May 20th, 2008 7:02 pm

    Does it hurt worse getting blown out or thinking you’ve got a chance to catch up and still losing?

    That’s the question the M’s are trying to answer this year. As anyone familiar with stats knows, however, you can’t base your conclusion on a small sample size, so we need lots of losses of each type to make it an accurate study.

  40. scott19 on May 20th, 2008 7:03 pm

    I would accredit that astronomic spike in the W/E in the ninth to be more as a result of the “Clash of the Titans” nature of this matchup than anything else.

    In other words, one of them ultimately had to lose it.

  41. scott19 on May 20th, 2008 7:04 pm

    Ahhh yes, you can smell the grittiness from here.

    Or, a word that rhymes with “grittiness”…

  42. CC03 on May 20th, 2008 7:15 pm


    Haha, that was good.

  43. Tom on May 20th, 2008 8:21 pm

    Is it time to do that “Cleveland style rebuilding” yet?

    I could care less about wins and losses at this point, I just want a breath of fresh air. I want direction.

  44. scraps on May 20th, 2008 9:33 pm

    They myth of George Karl’s teams being chokers is outrageous. It is built on reaction to one game: Game 5 against Denver. Denver was a bad matchup for Seattle; they’d given them fits all year. Losing the two games in Denver was not unexpected; Denver alays has a big home-court advantage. Losing game 5 sucked, but bad games happen. It was one (heartbreaking) bad game at the wrong time.

    People talk about the next year against the Lakers as though it were the same, but Seattle was a four seed and the Lakers were a five seed. And nobody mentions that the year before the Denver flameout, the Sonics — under Karl — completely unexpectedly clawed their way to the Western Conference finals. Game 5 against Denver apparently meant that run, the year before, had never happened. And the Sonics going to the finals and taking Chicago, arguably the best team ever that year, to seven games, and playing them much harder than anyone gave them credit for, apparently that didn’t matter either. “Chokers” is a better story.

    The Sonics collapse began with firing George Karl, and that’s a fact.

  45. scraps on May 20th, 2008 9:43 pm

    to seven games

    You mean six, Scraps.

  46. jspektor on May 20th, 2008 9:47 pm

    Just the fact that our Number 1 seeded Supes lost to the Number 8 seeded Nuggets isnt some small thing. It was heartbreaking indeed, but it was still a choke. In fact it was so much of a choke that only 2 teams (us and dallas) have ever done it in the History of the NBA.

    What makes matters worse is that MJ’s bulls were out of contention those two years. I highly doubt that more than 5 percent of Supes fans agree with your assertion that the 94 Denver series wasn’t a choke.

  47. Breadbaker on May 21st, 2008 12:47 am

    Miami lost to the Knicks as a no. 1 seed, too.

    I don’t think Karl’s teams were chokes. I just think he wore out his welcome (and it took him a lot longer in Seattle than anywhere else he’s coached).

  48. scraps on May 21st, 2008 12:56 pm

    jspektor, I said that Karl’s Sonics teams as a group weren’t chokers, and they are tarred as chokers because of that one game.

    I think it’s pretty silly to talk about choking, anyway — it’s mind-reading, story-based analysis — but I’ll give you the Denver series, if you want. They should have won. It wasn’t stunning that they lost — I was nervous going in, and lots of fans were — but it was heartbreaking.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.